Docket No. BL410177RT

                                    STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK  11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: BL410177RT 

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
          Various Tenants, by Jessie Smith        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
          as Tenants' Representative              NO.: 7MBC00067M(7MI05684M)


               The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 75-77 Park Terrace East, Various 
          Apartments, New York, New York.

              The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record 
          and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to 
          the issues raised by the petition.

              The issue in this proceeding is whether the Administrator's 
          order was correct.

              The Order being appealed found that the owner of the subject 
          premises was eligible for a 1986/87 Maximum Base Rent (MBR) 

              On appeal, the tenant maintains that she was served with 
          Notification of both the 1984/85  and 1986/87 MBR increases in 
          1986, thus compelling the tenant to pay two 7.5% rent increases in 
          one year, in violation of Section 2201.6(a)(1) of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations.  The tenant also maintains that she was 
          denied due process by the Administrator's failure to audit the 
          owner's Operating and Maintenance Expense (O & M) certification.

              The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 

          Docket No. BL410177RT


              An examination of the record reveals that, on August 21, 1985 
          the Administrator issued an order granting the owner conditional 
          eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject premises for the 1984/85 
          cycle.  The tenant testifies on appeal that she wasn't served with 
          this order until June, 1986.  The tenant further testifies on 
          appeal that later in 1986 she was served with the owner's receipt 
          of eligibility to raise 1986/87 MBRs.  As a result, according to 
          the tenant's testimony she (and the other rent-controlled tenants 
          at the subject premises) were forced to pay two 7.5% rent increases 
          during 1986, a clear violation of the Rent and Eviction 

              The Commissioner notes that the tenant filed a challenge to the 
          1984/85 MBR order during July 1986 (approximately one month after 
          she was served with the order).  The tenant based her challenge on 
          various matters, but did not challenge the order on the basis of 
          the alleged late service.  Rather, the tenant first raised the 
          matter in her challenge to the owner's eligibility for 1986/87 
          MBRs, such challenge filed by the tenant during September, 1986.

              The Commissioner is of the opinion that the proximate cause of 
          the tenant's being served with two orders of eligibility for two 
          MBR cycles during 1986 is the allegedly late service of the 1984/85 
          order of eligibility.  As noted above, the tenant did not raise the 
          issue on her challenge to that order.  The Commissioner is 
          therefore of the opinion that the tenant is using this PAR 
          proceeding to collaterally attack the 1984/85 MBR, and as such this 
          attack will not be considered by the Administrator on appeal.

              As for the tenant's argument on appeal that the Administrator 
          was in error for not ordering an O & M audit:  An audit of the 
          owner's O & M certification is not normally part of the MBR 
          process,  but is only ordered in extraordinary circumstances.  The 
          Commissioner notes that the tenant refers to another order in which 
          the Administrator denied the owner eligibility for failing to 
          provide additional information necessary for an O & M audit.  An 
          examination of that order (#7MBC00026M) reveals that the 
          Administrator found:
              "Owner failed to comply with request... to submit information 
          necessary for performing audit.."

              In the proceeding under review herein the Administrator did not 
          request the owner to provide additional information concerning the 
          O & M  certification.  Additionally, the two orders concern two 
          different premises, which are owned by different owners.  The 
          Commissioner is also of the opinion that the tenant has not 
          submitted sufficient evidence on appeal to prove her allegation of 
          the need for an O & M audit in the instant case.

          Docket No. BL410177RT

              THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, 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
                                             Deputy Commissioner


TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name