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 REVIEW
     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.:BC 230009-RO
                                         :  
                                            RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
        MARGARET LENNARD                    DOCKET NO.:DK 210063-OM
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

            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 
              failure;

          (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 
     delayed denial.

     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.

     ISSUED:
      






                                                                  
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Acting Deputy Commissioner




                                                    
      
    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name