DOCKET NO.: CE410064RT
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. CE410064RT
: DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
V. SERMAKASHEV, DOCKET NO. 7MBC00395M (7M11782M)
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for administrative review of
an order issued concerning the housing accommodations 84 East 7th Street,
Apt. 4, New York, NY.
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
In the May 13, 1988 order being appealed herein, the Administrator affirmed
the August 27, 1987 order which had found the owner was eligible to
increase the Maximum Base Rent (MBR) for 1986-1987.
The tenant had challenged the August 27, 1987 order, not on the basis that
the owner was not eligible, but because the owner had allegedly miscalcu
lated the new MBR and/or MCR (Maximum Collectible Rent). Accordingly, the
Administrator in affirming the eligibility order stated that the "tenant
may file enclosed form A-1 to determine maximum base rent."
In this appeal, the tenant contends that the MCR exceeds the MBR, in
violation of the Rent and Eviction Regulations.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this appeal should be denied.
The August 21, 1987 order of eligibility did not establish any specific
rent for the subject apartment. It merely stated the owner's right to
increase the MBR and MCR by certain percentages. Therefore, the tenant's
contention that the owner miscalculated the MBR and/or the MCR was not a
true challenge of the validity of the Administrator's order. Therefore,
the Administrator properly affirmed that order on May 13, 1988 which is now
Similarly, the contention in this petition that the owner computed the MCR
so as to exceed the MBR is not an allegation of any error of fact or law in
the Administrator's order.
DOCKET NO.: CE410064RT
The record indicates that the landlord has modified her prior calculation
of the MBR and MCR. If the tenant still feels the landlord has miscalcu
lated either the MBR or the MCR, the proper remedy is to file an A-1 Form
to have the proper MBR determined.
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