CK410131RT
                             STATE OF NEW YORK
                    DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                          OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                   GERTZ PLAZA
                             92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                             JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

      ------------------------------------X 
      IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. CK410131RT

           Frank Boyer,                   :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
                                             DOCKET NO. 059233
                                            
                                             OWNER: 273 East 3rd Associates   
              
                            PETITIONER    : 
      ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


      On November 8, 1988 the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition 
      for Administrative Review against an order issued on October 5, 1988 by 
      the District Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York 
      concerning the housing accommodations known as 273 East 3rd Street, 
      New York, New York, Apartment No. 7W wherein the District Rent 
      Administrator terminated the tenant's registration objection because the 
      tenant had filed it 553 days  after receiving the registration.

      The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was 
      warranted.

      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 originally commenced by the filing in January, 1986 
      of a Tenant's Objection to Rent/Services Registration, in which the 
      tenant stated that he had received the registration on June 22, 1984.  
      On October 5, 1988 the proceeding was terminated since the tenant had 
      not filed his objection within 90 days of receiving the registration.

      In this petition, the tenant contends in substance that his roommate had 
      a Conciliation and Appeals Board ("C.A.B.") case under Docket No. 
      TC077652G, which was dismissed because she had left the country, 
      although the tenant herein was still in residence; that he was also out 
      of town when that order was issued, and was not notified of the 
      termination of that case until it was too late to appeal; that, although 
      the C.A.B. case was closed without prejudice to reopening by his 
      roommate, she had returned to Europe and did not wish to reopen it, 
      particularly since she and he had the impression that the DHCR case 
      (under appeal herein) would bear the force of the objection since he had 
      been in occupancy since 1982; that, however, he was advised by the DHCR 
      to immediately open another case, which he did under Docket No. 
      AA401191R [Note: Both the tenant's complaint in Docket No. AA401191R, as 
      well as his registration objection in the proceeding under appeal 
      herein, were dated January 5, 1986, more than seven months prior to the 
      August 15, 1986, issuance of an order in the C.A.B. proceeding];  that 
      he did not file a registration objection earlier because he thought he 







          CK410131RT

      was a party to the C.A.B. proceeding; and that his registration 
      objection should not have been dismissed, since his objection to the 
      rent has been in existence continually since 1982 or 1983.  

      The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.

      While the tenant is not, strictly speaking, using this proceeding to 
      directly make a collateral attack on the C.A.B. order, he is attempting 
      to use the C.A.B. proceeding, (or what he claims to be his 
      misunderstanding about the proceeding and his failure to ensure that 
      mail reached him in a timely fashion, to which he was not even a party, 
      as justification for treating this proceeding as if it had been timely 
      filed, which would result in an April 1, 1980 base date per Rent 
      Stabilization Code Sections 2521.1(b)(1) and 2526.1(a)(3)(ii).  However, 
      Section 2526.1(a)(3)(ii) applies only to complaints filed within 90 days 
      of the initial registration.  The tenant's objection was filed a year 
      and a half after the initial registration, so it was appropriate to 
      dismiss it as untimely.  The Commissioner notes that the tenant does 
      have an overcharge case (Docket No. AA401191R), which he filed at the 
      same time that he filed his registration objection, open and pending 
      with the Rent Administrator.

      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.


      ISSUED:




                                                                    
                                      JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Deputy Commissioner