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. BI110498RT
Luke Nash, : DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO. BE110138R
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 30, 1987, the above-named petitioner-tenant timely refiled
a petition for administrative review against an order issued on August
10, 1987 by a Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New
York, concerning the housing accommodations known as Apartment No. 10,
31-69 37th Street, Astoria, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator
terminated the tenant's complaint because it solely concerned issues
which had been resolved in an earlier proceeding.
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 commenced by the tenant's filing of a rent
overcharge complaint on May 15, 1987, which was assigned docket number
BE110138R. The tenant assumed occupancy on August 1, 1982 pursuant to
a one year lease at a rent of $296.00 per month. In the complaint the
tenant alleged that the owner's claim for $2,000.00 in apartment
improvements, in March, 1979, was "fraudulent", and that the $50.00 per
month "surcharge" was improper.
In an order issued on August 10, 1987, the Rent Administrator terminated
the instant proceeding because the tenant's overcharge complaint had
been resolved in an order issued under docket number TC080168G, on
September 23, 1986.
In this petition, the tenant contends that the subject of the complaint
had not been resolved in another proceeding, and that the Administrator
should not have terminated it. The tenant repeats his claim that the
$50.00 per month added for improvements on March 1, 1979 was fraudulent
and that there were no such renovations. Finally, the tenant states
that order TC080168G was appealed in a PAR that was timely filed by him.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
In Order TC080168G, issued on September 23, 2986, the Administrator
found that the rent charged in the lease commencing on March 1, 1979, in
the amount of $246.48, was the lawful rent. In order to challenge the
$50.00 per month charge for apartment improvements which was included in
that amount, the tenant was obligated to file a timely challenge to
that order, or else the Administrator's determination would become
final. Despite the tenant's claim to the contrary, a review of DHCR
records and of the case file for that proceeding indicate that no such
petition was ever filed. Therefore the Administrator's September 23,
1986 order became final and the tenant's subsequent overcharge complaint
raising the same issues was properly terminated by the Administrator.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization
Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that the tenant's petition for administrative review be, and
the same hereby is, denied, and the Rent Administrator's order be, and
the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA