DOCKET NUMBERS: CF 410089-RT & EA 410152-RO
                                 STATE OF NEW YORK
                           OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NOS.:CF 410089-RT &
                                         :              EA 410152-RO
     ALEXANDRA STACY                        DRO DOCKET NOS.: 052322/CF
     & STAHL ASSOCIATES    PETITIONER    :                   410089-RT    

     The abovenamed petitioners, tenant and owner, filed timely  Petitions  for
     Administrative Review against orders issued on May 26, 1988  and  December
     22, 1989 by the Rent Administrator of the Tenant Objection Unit concerning 
     the housing accommodations known as 405 East 54th Street,  Apartment  12N,

     The Commissioner deems it appropriate to  consolidate  the  petitions  for
     disposition herein.

     The first stabilization tenant of the subject apartment, Alexandra  Stacy,
     filed an Objection to the Apartment Registration on or about November  28,
     1984, alleging she did not receive a copy of the registration.

     On May 26, 1988 the Administrator issued the first of the herein  appealed
     orders (052322) terminating the proceeding on the grounds that the  tenant
     had not been in occupancy on April 1, 1984 and the owner was not  required
     to serve a copy of the 1984 registration (RR-1) on her.

     The tenant filed a petition (CF  410089-RT)  against  the  Administrator's
     order alleging that she had never received a DC-2 Notice and that she  was
     entitled to a fair market rent appeal.

     On September 20, 1989 the Administrator  issued  a  notice  reopening  the
     proceeding on the grounds that Ms Stacy, as the first  stabilized  tenant,
     was entitled to receive a DC-2 Notice and a copy of the  registration  and
     sending the owner a Fair Market Rent answering  package  advising  of  its
     rights to submit comparability data.

     On December 22, 1989 the Administrator issued the second  herein  appealed
     order (052322/CF 410089-RT) establishing an initial fair  market  rent  of
     $744.40, computed on the 1984 controlled maximum rent of $628.93  plus  an
     $18.37 fuel cost adjustment plus 15% pursuant to Special Guideline 16.  

     The Administrator then updated the rent to reflect  3  subsequent  renewal

     DOCKET NUMBERS: CF 410089-RT 7 EA 410152-RO
     leases and established a final rent of $894.47 as of November 1,  1988  to
     October 31, 1989, which represented  a  reduction  of  $1208.36  from  the
     tenant's renewal lease  rent  of  $2,102.83.   The  Administrator  further
     ordered a refund of $67,684.88 in excess rent and a rollback of all future 
     rents in accord with those established therein.

     The order further stated that the owner had  failed  to  submit  competent
     comparability data.

     In its petition (EA 410152-RO) against the3 second order the owner,  among
     other things, alleges that the tenant's original  objection  was  untimely
     and incomplete; and that the owner did, in fact, submit comparability data 
     in response to the Administrator's notice on  or  about  October  9,  1989
     submitting a certified mail receipt and, among other things, a Schedule 1. 
     Comparability Data (RN 2522.3) listing 4 apartments  within  the  building
     and 6 outside the building which it urges  should  have  been  taken  into

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that the  proceeding  with  respect  to
     the  tenant's  petition  (CF  410089-RT)  should  be  terminated  and  the
     proceeding with respect to the owner's petition (EA 410152-RO)  should  be
     remanded for further processing.

     The subsequent actions of the Rent Administrator have effectively rendered 
     the tenant's petition moot  and  accordingly  that  proceeding  should  be

     With respect to the owner's petition, it is undisputed that this  was  the
     first stabilized tenant and she was not served  with  a  DC-2  Notice  and
     registration.  Since  she  was  never  served  there  is  no  question  of
     timeliness.  The Commissioner finds that the owner was adequately  put  on
     notice and the matter properly treated as a air market rent appeal.

     However, the Commissioner is further of the opinion  that  the  owner  has
     established that it did, in fact, timely submit comparability  data  which
     somehow did not reach the record and was not considered in determining the 
     fair market rent.

     The Commissioner, accordingly, further finds that  the  matter  should  be
     remanded in order that comparability be  considered,  on  notice  to  both
     parties, and the rent redetermined accordingly.

     The  Commissioner  notes  that  the  filing  of   the   owner's   petition
     automatically stayed the Administrator's order insofar as  it  directed  a
     refund of excess rent or permitted the tenant  to  deduct  same  from  the
     rent.  That automatic stay is continued until a new  order  is  issued  on

     In view of the large rent reduction ordered by the  Administrator  and  to
     minimize hardships on the parties, including the possibility of 

     substantial arrears if the owner is successful on remand, the Commissioner 
     finds that the prospective rent  reduction  of  $1208.36  ordered  by  the
     Administrator as abovenoted should be reduced by a  half  and  an  interim
     rent of $1498.65 ($894.47 + half of $1208.36)  plus  adjustments  for  any

     DOCKET NUMBERS: CF 410089-RT & EA 410152-RO
     leases executed subsequent to October 31, 1989 be established  as  of  the
     first rent payment date occurring after 30 days from the date of  issuance

     Until that time the tenant may continue paying rent  in  accord  with  the
     Administrator's order.  Any arrears resulting herefrom are stayed until  a
     new order is issued on remand in which order the  Administrator  may  also
     provide for installment payment of arrears if necessary.

     THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

     ORDERED, that the proceeding under CF 410089-RT be, and  the  same  hereby
     is, terminated and that the petition under EA 410152-RO be, and  the  same
     hereby is, granted to the extent of remanding the proceeding to  the  Rent
     Administrator for further processing in accord herewith.  The order of the 
     Administrator is stayed as above set forth.


                                                 ELLIOT SANDER
                                              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