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

      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. CF410200RT

                                          :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
           Randall S. Green,                 DOCKET NO. BE410496R
                                             OWNER: Peter Sourian             
                            PETITIONER    : 


      On June 27, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition for 
      Administrative Review against an order issued on May 23, 1988, by the 
      Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, 
      concerning the housing accommodations known as 30 East 70th Street,     
      New York, Apartment No. 4F, wherein the Administrator terminated the 
      proceeding and found that no rent overcharge had occurred. 

      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 on May 13, 1987 when the tenant filed a 
      complaint of rent overcharge, alleging that he had only recently 
      discovered that he was paying substantially more rent than the prior 
      tenant had paid.

      In response, the owner asserted that the tenant was the first rent 
      stabilized tenant and that a DC-2 form, (Notice of Initial Legal 
      Regulated Rent) informing the tenant of his right to protest the rent, 
      had been mailed to the tenant on May 3, 1984.

      The owner submitted copies of various documents, including a letter to 
      the tenant dated May 3, 1984, a DC-2 form, a two year lease with rent 
      stabilization rider, the Landlord's Report of Statutory Decontrol, and 
      certified mail and return receipts.  Subsequently, the owner also 
      submitted a copy of the initial registration (RR-1) and certification of 
      mailing by the Rent Stabilization Association.  The owner asserted that 
      the tenant's challenge, made more than 90 days after service of the RR- 
      1, was too late.

      In the order herein appealed, based upon the tenant's failure to 
      challenge the Initial Legal Regulated Rent (ILRR) within 90 days from 
      receipt of the DC-2 notice, the Administrator established the initial 
      registered rent at $1,385.00 and terminated the proceeding.

      In his appeal, the tenant contends that the order should be reversed 
      because the Administrator's finding is based on forgery and perjury by 


      the owner.  The tenant asserts that he was not at any time served with 
      the apartment registration.  As outlined by various documents included 
      with the appeal, the tenant raises a number of issues primarily 
      concerned with service complaints and the landlord-tenant relationship 
      but not germane to the overcharge complaint.

      The owner contends that he has neither forged nor perjured but has 
      served all notices as was required.  

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

      The issued central to the overcharge complaint is whether the tenant was 
      served with the DC-2 notice.  This  is the only issue considered in this 
      order and opinion.  The remaining issues raised in the petition by the 
      tenant are not germane and have not been considered.

      Review of the evidence indicates that the owner served a DC-2 form on 
      the tenant as substantiated by a certified mail receipt.  Further the 
      evidence discloses that an RR-1 was served on the tenant herein in 1984 
      as evidenced by proof of service by the Rent Stabilization Association.  
      The tenant has presented no probative evidence that a forgery was 
      accomplished.  Since the tenant did not file a timely challenge to the 
      initial rent, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator's order is 
      correct as written.

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

      ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and 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