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.
IRVING ROSENBLUM, DISTRICT RENT
PETITIONER K 005671-R
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 15, 1988, the above-named tenant filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on August 4, 1988 by a
District Administrator concerning the housing accommodation known
as 150 Corbin Place, Apartment 6-S, Brooklyn, New York, wherein
the Administrator determined that the tenant had not been
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issues raised by the petition for review.
This proceeding was commenced by the filing of a rent overcharge
complaint by the tenant, dated December 11, 1985.
The tenant took occupancy pursuant to a two-year lease commencing
on April 1, 1981, and expiring on March 31, 1983 at a monthly
rent of $350.00.
In its answer the owner submitted the April 1, 1984 apartment
registration which listed the April 1, 1984 rent as $364.00. In
addition, the owner submitted leases from April 1, 1986 through
March 31, 1989.
In the order under review herein, the Administrator found that
there had been no rent overcharge. Also, the Administrator noted
that the registered rent on April 1, 1984 was $364.00, and that
the tenant failed to timely object to the apartment registration.
Therefore, the Administrator determined that the base rent for
the subject apartment is the April 1, 1984 rent of $364.00.
In the petition for review, the tenant asserts that the
Administrator incorrectly calculated the rent because the lease
commencing on April 1, 1984 was a one-year lease, but the Admin-
istrator calculated the rent using a two-year lease guideline.
Also, the tenant alleges that he was never served with the
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenant's petition
should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the petitioner is correct in his
assertion that the lease commencing on April 1, 1984 was a
one-year lease and not a two-year lease. However, a
recalculation of the rent chart, attached hereto, indicates that
the tenant is paying the legal regulated rent. Accordingly, the
Commissioner finds that there was no rent overcharge.
As to the tenant's assertion that he was not served with the
apartment registration, the Commissioner notes that the tenant
did not submit this issue to the Administrator. As this issue is
submitted for the first time upon administrative review and the
tenant offered no explanation as to why this issue was not
presented to the Administrator, it is outside the scope of the
Commissioner's review in this proceeding. Moreover, the Commis-
sioner notes that the tenant's assertion that he was not served
with the apartment registration is belied by the tenant's
overcharge complaint, which states that he was served with the
apartment registration. Finally, the owner submitted evidence to
the Rent Administrator of having served the tenant with the
apartment registration in June of 1984.
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 District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.