STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:BC 230009-RO
MARGARET LENNARD DOCKET NO.:DK 210063-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 2, 1992 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on February 6, 1992 by the
Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York concerning
housing accommodations known as 542 Pacific Street, Brooklyn, New York
various apartments, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's rent
increase application. The issue in this proceeding is whether the order of
the Administrator is correct.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues
raised by the petition for Administrative review.
The owner commenced this proceeding by initially filing with the Division on
November 9, 1989, a rent increase application for the subject building
containing only rent stabilized units based on pointing and waterproofing.
On February 6, 1992 the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review. Since all the apartments in the subject building were rent
stabilized units the application was denied on grounds that the owner had
failed to file within the allowable two year period from the completion of
the installation as required by the Rent Stabilization Code. (Due to a
clerical error, Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction regulations is cited
as the basis thereof).
In this petition for Administrative Review the owner contends in substance:
(1) that she was unaware of the two year limitation on filing
a major capital improvement rent application;
(2) that her failure to file timely is a mere technical defect
which should be overlooked and the application decided on
its merits since there is no dispute the work was actually
performed or that the tenants were prejudiced by this
(3) that if her initial application was defective she should
not have been required to furnish additional information
concerning various details of the work performed.
DOCKET NUMBER: GC 230009-RO
In response to the owner's administrative appeal three tenants filed
responses. One tenant endorsed the rent increase; two tenants urged denial.
After a careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner is of
the opinion that this petition should be denied.
Section 2522.4 (a)(8) of the Rent Stabilization Code precludes a rent
increase for a major capital improvement where the application is filed more
than two years after the completion of the installation.
In the instant application initially filed on November 9, 1989 the owner
specified that the pointing and waterproofing was completed on July 3, 1987.
It is clear that the application was filed some four months beyond the
permissible period for filing a major capital improvement application
affecting rent stabilized apartments.
The owner of a rent regulated dwelling is charged with knowledge of the laws
and regulations governing said property and cannot in advance of self
interest claim ignorance, thereof.
Although the Administrator failed to initially deny the application based on
its untimeliness the owner did not demonstrate any prejudice to her by the
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly denied
the application in accordance with the provisions of Section 2522.4(a)(8) of
the Rent Stabilization Code.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is denied; that the Rent
Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is modified by deleting
reference to Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations and
substituting therefor Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code; and
that is so modified said order be and the same hereby is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner