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.BE110150RO
Allison Company : DRO DOCKET NO.3122704R
TENANT: Shahnaz Zargari
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 14, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order issued on November 17,
1986 by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New
York, concerning the housing accommodation known as 81-10 135th
Street, Kew Gardens, New York, apartment 406, wherein the
Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the tenant.
Said petition was dismissed on October 21, 1987 because it was not
filed within 35 days after the order appealed had been issued.
Subsequent thereto, the owner moved in the Supreme Court, Queens
County for an order to vacate a default judgment entered therein.
By order of Justice Bambrick on April 19, 1988, the proceeding was
remitted to the DHCR for further consideration to determine the
question of service of the tenant's complaint on the owner.
This proceeding was commenced on March 12, 1984 when the tenant
filed a complaint of rent overcharge.
On March 21, 1984, the owner was notified that a complaint had been
filed and was further informed of the need to retain all rent
records dating back to June 30, 1974.
On November 15, 1984, a copy of the complaint along with an answer
form to be filled out was sent to the owner.
A Final Notice of Pending Default, in which the service date of the
complaint was stated, was sent to the owner on June 30, 1986.
There is no record of any response by the owner.
In the order issued on November 17, 1986, the Administrator found
that the owner had failed to provide a full rental history. Based
upon the owner's default, the Administrator established the lawful
stabilization rent and directed the owner to refund an overcharge
In its appeal, the owner alleges inter alia, that it never received
a copy of the complaint and thereby has been deprived of due
Since consideration of the owner's appeal is based on the court's
directive to determine whether service of the complaint on the
owner was made, this order and opinion will address only that
Review of the record reveals that the complaint was sent in the
ordinary course of business to the owner's mailing address on
November 15, 1984 and has not been returned as undeliverable by the
postal authorities. The address to which the complaint was mailed
has been used for other mailings by the agency to the owner. The
Commissioner notes that the owner admits receipt of the March 21,
1984 notice which was sent to the same post office box and further
notes that the owner did not question service of the complaint when
it received the final notice. The Commissioner finds, therefore,
that the complaint was served on the owner at its post office box
in the care of United States postal service. Accordingly, the
Commissioner finds that the Administrator did not deprive the owner
of due process nor err in defaulting the owner.
Upon the expiration of the period in which the owner may institute
a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and
Rules, this order may be filed and enforced in the same manner as
a judgment or not in excess of twenty percent per month thereof may
be offset against any rent thereafter due the owner.
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
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA