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. CD110168RT
: DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
DOCKET NO. TC082246G/CDR13517
Edward J. Moore, Jr., CI11047RP/CDR13517 As
Owner: Queens Blvd. Realty Corp.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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