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.: CC 110220-RO
DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
Umar Chaudry, DOCKET NO.: 54698
TENANT: Fouad Shaaban
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 23, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
March 11, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle,
New York, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known
as 99-21 43rd Avenue, Corona, New York, Apartment No. 6, wherein
the Rent Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged
The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2528.2 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 in January 1985 by the
filing of an objection to the 1984 apartment registration by the
tenant, alleging that the rent being paid was an overcharge, and
that the apartment registration form had not been received. The
tenant took occupancy on February 1, 1980 at a monthly rent of
The owner was requested to submit proof of service of the
apartment registration upon the tenant, and all leases from
April 1, 1980. In response, the owner submitted leases for the
following periods: February 1, 1980 through January 31, 1981;
February 1, 1984 through January 31, 1985; July 1, 1985 through
June 30, 1986; July 1, 1986 through June 30, 1988.
The owner also submitted an affidavit documenting the mailing on
May 19, 1984 of the 1984 apartment registration to the tenant by
the Rent Stabilization Association, along with the postal receipt
for that mailing, and the RSA mailing house addressee list.
Under Docket Number 54698, the Rent Administrator determined that
the tenant had been overcharged in the amount of $4,655.81,
including treble damages on overcharges collected on or after
April 1, 1984, and directed the owner to refund such overcharge
to the tenant.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the
tenant's objection to registration should have been dismissed
because the tenant failed to file it within 90 days of May 19,
1984, the date of service of the apartment registration. The
tenant did not respond to the petition.
Pursuant to Sections 2522.3(c)(2), 2526.1(a)(2)(ii), and
2528.2(d) of the Rent Stabilization Code, a tenant must file a
challenge to the initial apartment registration (overcharge
complaint or fair market rent appeal) within 90 days of service
of the registration form on the tenant by certified mail.
Section 2528.2(d) further provides that for registrations served
prior to the effective date of that section, any method of
service permitted by the DHCR at the time of service shall be
deemed to have the same effect as service by certified mailing.
The Division's instructions for service of the initial apartment
registration on the tenant by the owner provided for hand
delivery of the envelope with signed receipt, use of the Post
Office "Carrier Route Pre-Sort" Service through a bonded mailing
housing as evidenced by the Post Office date-certification of the
number of pieces received from the mailing house for each
building and the mailing house addressee list or regular first
class mail documented by Post Office form #P.O. 3877.
DHCR instructions further provided that the proof(s) of receipt,
properly signed and dated (by the tenant, the post office, and
the mailing house, as appropriate) would be considered adequate
by the DHCR to establish the tenant's 90 day challenge period,
which would begin on the date of receipt.
To document the date of mailing of the apartment registration to
the tenant, the owner submitted the R.S.A. mailing house
addressee list and the postal receipt for the May 19, 1984
mailing. The Commissioner finds that the documentation conforms
to DHCR service requirements and proves the mailing of the
apartment registration to the tenant on May 19, 1984.
The tenant's objection was dated by the tenant at the time of his
signature as January 11, 1985, and was date - stamped received by
the DHCR on January 14, 1985, more than seven months following
the mailing of the apartment registration to the tenant on May
19, 1984. The Commissioner therefore finds that the tenant's
objection was untimely filed.
Inasmuch as the tenant's objection has been found to be untimely,
the other arguments raised by the owner in its petition are found
to be moot.
If the owner has already complied with the Rent Administrator's
order and there are arrears due to the owner as a result of the
instant determination, the tenant is permitted to pay off the
arrears in twenty four equal monthly installments.
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 that the
tenant's objection be, and the same hereby is, dismissed as
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner