BG 610177 RT
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. BG 610177 RT
: DRO DOCKET NO. 54242
ROBERT T. ESHUN OWNER: HENRY T. SACHS, JR.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 24, 1987, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on June
23, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York,
New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 2344
Davidson Avenue, Bronx, New York, Apartment No. 5A, wherein the Rent
Administrator determined that the tenant had not been
The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2526.1 of the Rent Stabilization Code.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was originally commenced on February 10,
1985, by the tenant's filing of an objection to the apartment
registration, including a fair market rent appeal and an
overcharge complaint. The tenant took occupancy pursuant to a
lease commencing July 1, 1984 and expiring June 30, 1985 at a
monthly rent of $425.00. The tenant indicated on his objection
form that he had not received an initial registration form from
In answer, the owner submitted copies of leases from March 1,
1976 for the subject apartment and a Report of Statutory Decontrol
showing that the subject apartment first became rent stabilized on
March 1, 1976. The owner also submitted evidence showing that the
prior tenant had been served with the initial registration form on
June 18, 1984.
In the order under appeal herein, the Rent Administrator
stated on page one that the tenant had filed a timely objection to
the registration and determined that there was no rent overcharge
based on an examination of the rental history from the April 1,
BG 610177 RT
1980 base date. However on page two of said order, the Rent
Administrator dismissed the tenant's objection on the basis that
it was not filed within ninety days of service of the registration
on June 18, 1984.
In this petition, the tenant alleges in substance that the
Rent Administrator's order should be modified because the owner
failed to serve him with a copy of the prior tenant's lease and
that the tenant had not been served with a copy of the owner's
answer in the proceeding before the Rent Administrator.
In response to the tenant's petition, the owner stated in
substance that the Rent Administrator's order was warranted and
submitted evidence that the tenant herein had been served with a
copy of the registration form on September 12, 1984.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
be denied and the Rent Administrator's order modified.
Pursuant to Sections 2522.3 (c) (2), 2526.1 (a) (2) (ii), and
2528.2 (d) of the Rent Stabilization Code, a tenant must file a
challenge to the initial apartment registration (overcharge
complaint or fair market rent appeal) within 90 days of service of
the registration form on the tenant by certified mail. Section
2528.2 (d) further provides that for registrations served prior to
the effective date of that section, any method of service
permitted by the DHCR at the time of service shall be deemed to
have the same effect as service by certified mailing.
The Division's instructions for service of the initial rent
registration on the tenant by the owner provided for hand delivery
of the envelope with signed receipt, use of the Post Office
"Carrier Route Pre-Sort" Service through a bonded mailing house as
evidenced by the Post Office date-certification of the number of
pieces received from the mailing house for each building and the
mailing house addressee list or regular first class mail
documented by Post Office Form #P.O. 3877.
DHCR instructions further provide that the proof(s) of
receipt, properly signed and dated (by the tenant, the post
office, and the mailing house, as appropriate) will be considered
adequate by the DHCR to establish the tenant's 90 day challenge
period, which will begin on the date of the receipt.
In the instant case, the owner has submitted a copy of Post
Office Form #P.O. 3877 showing that the registration form was duly
mailed to the prior tenant on June 18, 1984. The owner also
submitted a Certificate of Mailing Form (Post Office Form #3817)
showing the tenant herein was served with the registration form on
September 12, 1984. Since the tenant herein did not file an
objection to the registration within ninety days of June 18, 1984
or even within 90 days of September 12, 1984, the April 1, 1984
registered rent of $411.11 is considered the lawful stabilization
rent. The owner then correctly added a 4% increase pursuant to
Guideline 15 for a one year vacancy lease making the lawful
BG 610177 RT
stabilization rent $425.00 (owner could have charged $427.55) upon
the initial occupancy of the tenant herein on July 1, 1984.
Accordingly, there is no rent overcharge. The Rent
Administrator's order is hereby modified to delete the finding
that the tenant's objection to the registration was timely filed
and to delete the rental calculations prior to April 1, 1984. It
is noted however that an examination of the rental history from
the date of vacancy decontrol in March 1976 discloses that no rent
It is further noted that any alleged failure on the owner's
part to show the tenant a copy of the prior tenant's lease does
not effect the fact that there was no rent overcharge.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and
the same hereby is, denied, and, that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed as modified
BG 610177 RT