ADM. APPEAL DOCKET NO. BC 410032 - RT
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
------------------------------------X
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.
BC 410032 - RT
:
DRO DOCKET NO.
41346
TODD LEFTON
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 6, 1987 the above-named petitioner tenant filed an
Administrative Appeal against a Notice of Disposition issued on
February 11, 1987 by the District Rent Administrator, Gertz
Plaza, concerning the housing accommodations known as 200 West
20th Street, New York, New York, Apartment No. 716, wherein the
Administrator dismissed the tenant's objection to the apartment
registration on grounds said objection was untimely.
This proceeding was commenced on December 28, 1984 when the
tenant (Todd Lefton) filed an objection to the Rent and Services
Registration filed by the owner with respect to the subject
accommodation. The tenant stated that said registration was
received on July 21, 1984 but that he was unable to file earlier
due to illness; and that he was making an overcharge complaint
and fair market rent appeal per attached forms.
The Administrator issued the Notice of Disposition appealed
herein dismissing said objection since it was received 160 days
after the tenant acknowledged receipt of the registration.
In this petition for administrative review the tenant
contends, in substance, that the Administrator failed to address
the statement made in the objection to the effect that he was
ADM. APPEAL DOCKET NO. BC 410032 - RT
unable to file same within 90 days of receipt of the registration
due to illness; that he had been advised, upon inquiry of the
Division, to file the form with the notation thereon of his
inability to file within the time prescribed; that the
Administrator failed to address the fact that a separate Fair
Market/Rent Overcharge complaint had simultaneously been filed
wherein he detailed a complaint regarding the rent charged upon
his first rental of the apartment in October 1983 and that he may
be the first stabilized tenant of the apartment, and that the
"Amended 1983 Omnibus Act" allows a four year limit to file such
Fair Market/Rent Overcharge complaint.
In response thereto the owner states, in substance, that the
petition should be denied since the tenant concededly did not
file a timely objection within 90 days as required by the Rent
Stabilization Law.
After a careful consideration of the entire record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
denied.
The tenant's interpretation of the Rent Stabilization Law is
incorrect. Section 26-513 (e) of the Rent Stabilization Law
provides as follows:
"Notwithstanding any contrary provision in
this law an application for an adjustment
pursuant to this section [Application for
adjustment of initial rent - i.e. fair
market rent appeal] must be filed within
ninety days from the initial registration.
This subdivision shall not extend any other
time limitations imposed by this law."
Section 26-516 of the Rent Stabilization Law provides, in
pertinent part, that any objection to the initial registration by
the owner shall be filed within ninety days of the mailing of
notice to the tenant of such registration.
In the instant proceeding the tenant acknowledged receipt of
the initial registration of the subject apartment on July 21,
1984. The tenant concedes that objection to said registration as
well as the attached Fair Market/Rent Overcharge complaint forms
(assigned Docket No. 41346) were not filed within the requisite
90 days but urges that the delay should be excused due to
illness. The Commissioner finds that the Rent Stabilization Law
does not provide for any exception. The same rule applies to the
filing of a complaint of rent overcharge or fair market rent
ADM. APPEAL DOCKET NO. BC 410032 - RT
appeal within the context of the instant proceeding.
Furthermore, even if there were an exception for illness, a
petitioner would have to show incapacity for the entire 90 day
period, something the facts is this case does not show. The
Commissioner notes that the case and related reopened
proceedings (involving another building) alluded to by the
petitioner is distinguishable in that the tenant in that other
matter had filed a fair market rent challenge within 90 days of
receipt of the 1984 initial registration. Accordingly, the
Commissioner finds that the tenant's arguments are insufficient
to warrant revocation of the Administrator's determination.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is
denied; and that the Notice of Disposition issued by the
Administrator be, and the same hereby is affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|