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

      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. CD110168RT

                                          :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
                                             DOCKET NO. TC082246G/CDR13517
           Edward J. Moore, Jr.,                        CI11047RP/CDR13517 As
                                             Owner: Queens Blvd. Realty Corp.  
                            PETITIONER    : 


      On April 20, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition 
      for Administrative Review against an order issued on March 18, 1988, by 
      the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York, 
      concerning the housing accommodations known as 59-29 Queens Boulevard, 
      Queens, New York, Apartment No. 2K, wherein the Rent Administrator, 
      amending an order issued on February 27, 1986, established the legal 
      stabilized rent at $434.48 as of September 1, 1983 and directed the 
      owner to refund an overcharge of $282.48.

      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 when the tenant filed a complaint of rent 

      In the order issued on February 27, 1986, the Administrator determined 
      that the tenant had been overcharged in the amount of $7,277.74.

      Subsequently, the owner's request for reconsideration was granted and 
      the order was amended to recompute the legal rent.

      In the order here under review, the Administrator determined that 
      $434.48 is the lawful stabilized rent as of September 1, 1983 and 
      directed the owner to refund $282.48 to the tenant.

      In his appeal, the tenant contends that the Administrator erred in 
      reopening the proceeding and in amending the order.  The tenant asserts 
      that the request should have been denied because the owner did not file 
      a PAR, because there was no legal reason to reopen and because the owner 
      waited too long after learning of the order's issuance to make the 
      request.  The tenant contends also that the rent history submitted by 
      the owner is not valid because three leases were unsigned.  Finally, the 
      tenant contends that he relied on the Administrator's order in paying 
      the rent.  Repaying the arrears owed as a consequence of the amended 
      order will cause undue hardship.


      The owner contends that the tenant's PAR should be denied because it was 
      not filed timely.  The owner further contends that the Administrator did 
      not err in reopening the proceeding because it did not receive the order 
      when it was issued and because the order was based on erroneous figures 
      and that all the leases submitted are signed.  The owner contends that 
      the amended order should be sustained as correct on its merits.

      After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
      this petition should be denied.

      The owner's contention that the tenant's PAR is untimely is incorrect.  
      The tenant's petition is postmarked on April 20, 1988 well within 35 
      days after the issuance of the Administrator's order.

      Review of the record reveals that the order was not served on the owner.  
      The record contains a copy of the order which was sent to the owner at 
      the time of its issuance but thereafter returned to the DHCR by the post 
      office as undeliverable.  Regardless of the owner's knowledge of the 
      order from unofficial sources, preservation of the owner's due process 
      rights required that the owner be given the opportunity to challenge the 
      correctness of the order.  The owner was not limited to filing a PAR but 
      could pursuant to Code Section 2527.8, as it did, request 
      reconsideration to correct alleged errors.  The Commissioner finds that 
      the Administrator did not err in reopening the proceeding.

      With respect to the validity of the submitted leases, the Commissioner 
      notes that the tenant has not contended that there is anything 
      fraudulent about the leases or the tenants named therein.  The record 
      discloses that the 1978 lease was executed, that the tenant of record 
      signed the riders to the December 1979 lease and initialed the renewal 
      form in 1980.  Accordingly, the Commissioner finds no error in the 
      acceptance of the rental history submitted by the owner.

      The Commissioner notes that the substance of the amended order is not 
      contended.  Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator 
      correctly amended the order.

      If there are arrears due to the owner as a result of the instant 
      determination or as a result of the Rent Administrator's amended order, 
      the tenant is permitted to pay off the arrears in 24 equal monthly 
      installments.   Should the tenant vacate after the issuance of this 
      order or have already vacated, said arrears shall be payable 

      THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

      ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and that 
      the Rent Administrator's order 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