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. BL210026RT
: DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
Katherine & Reynold Brown, DOCKET NO. ZAE210405R
OWNER: Creative Housing Ltd.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 17, 1987 the above-named petitioner-tenants filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order issued on December 8, 1987 by
the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York
concerning the housing accommodations known as Apartment A5 at 170 Fenimore
Street, Brooklyn, New York wherein the Rent Administrator determined that
there was no overcharge.
The issue in this Appeal is whether the Rent Administrator's order was
In this petition, the tenants contend in substance that there should be a
rent reduction since there are service decreases and violations. In the
section calling for the docket number of the order being appealed they have
listed three numbers which appear to be Housing Court index or docket
numbers. For the issuance date of the order they give three dates, none of
them being December 8, 1987. However, the tenants also enclosed a copy of
the order in Docket No. AE210405R, on which they wrote that they were
appealing the overcharge decision "because we had no way of knowing that we
were defrauded until we go through proper channels."
In answer, the owner asserts in substance that the tenants cannot file a
DHCR Petition for Administrative Review against three landlord and tenant
cases; that the last DHCR decision is one of April 14, 1986 in Docket No.
K005692RV, so this would be an untimely appeal of that decision; and that
the tenants cannot start a DHCR complaint by filing a Petition for
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenants' petition should be
The April 14, 1986 order in Docket No. K005692RV found that the rents in
the tenants' first two leases were lawful, and stated that forms for
service complaints were being mailed to the tenants. The tenants promptly
filed another overcharge complaint, on which they also alleged "enormous"
violations in the apartment. It was proper for the Administrator to again
find no overcharge for the same two lease terms. An overcharge complaint
is not the proper place to complain of service decreases.
The Commissioner notes that the tenants have vacated.
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA