BH 210110 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.: BH 210110 RT
Phyllis and Syliva DRO DOCKET NO.: 047168
OWNER: Katz Realty/
PETITIONER Oxford Realty
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On August 7, 1987, the above-named petitioner-tenants filed an appeal
against an order issued on July 21, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 10
Columbus Circle, New York, New York, concerning the housing
accommodations known as 1685 Ocean Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment
No. 2J, wherein the Rent Administrator dismissed the Tenant Objection as
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 was
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 by the filing of a Tenant's
Objection form challenging the owner's apartment registration statement
on the basis of a rent overcharge and room count error.
In Order Number 47168, the Rent Administrator dismissed the Tenant's
Objection as being an untimely challenge to the owner's service of the
RR1 form on June 29, 1984 stating that the tenant's filing of the
objection on September 28, 1984 was in excess of 90 days.
In this petition, the tenant contends in substance that the Rent
Administrator miscalculated the amount of days from the service of the
RR1 on June 29, 1984 to the filing of the Tenant's Objection. The
tenant submitted a certified signed receipt (USPS form 3811) indicating
receipt of the complaint on September 27, 1984 by DHCR.
In answer to the tenant's petition, the owner contends in substance that
the Rent Administrator's order was warranted because there is no dispute
that the owner served the RR1 on June 29, 1984 and that 91 days had
lapsed between June 29, 1984 and the date of receipt of the objection by
DHCR on September 28, 1984.
BH 210110 RT
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be granted
to the extent of remanding the proceeding to be processed on the merits.
An examination of the records in this case discloses that the tenants
are correct in their contention that the Tenant Objection form was filed
within 90 days of the June 29, 1984 service of the RR1 form. The tenant
had submitted to the Rent Administrator USPS form 3800 indicating a
mailing to DHCR post marked September 25, 1984 the same date as
postmarked on the envelope attached to the Tenant Objection form in the
docket. This is sufficient proof that the Tenant Objection was filed on
September 25, 1984 within the 90 day period commencing with the service
of the RR1 on June 29, 1984.
Accordingly, this proceeding is being remanded to treat the Tenant's
Objection filed on September 25, 1984 as a timely challenge to the
initial registration on the merits.
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, granted, that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the
same hereby is, revoked, and it is
ORDERED, that this proceeding be and the same hereby is remanded to the
Rent Administrator to decide the Tenant Objection on the merits. The
Tenant Objection is to be considered as timely filed and the owner
should therefore not be directed to submit proof of service of the RR1
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
BH 210110 RT