ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CK 410136 RT
                                  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.: CK 410136 RT   
                       
             
                                              :
                                                 DRO ORDER NO.: 59027       
                                                 Examining Unit           
                  JANENE HIGGINS - TENANT                                   
                                                 
                                                 Owner - Saint Marks Assets
                                                  

                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING FOR FURTHER PROCESSING


               On  November  22,  1988  the  above-named  tenant  filed   a
          Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          October 26, 1988 by the Rent Administrator, 10  Columbus  Circle,
          New York, New York concerning the housing accommodation known  as
          30 St. Marks Place, Apartment 6-A, New York,  New  York,  wherein
          the Administrator terminated the proceeding.

               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 in the administrative appeal.  

               This proceeding was commenced on December 4, 1985  when  the
          tenant filed an  objection  to  the  Rent/Services  Registration,
          alleging that the rent being charged was an overcharge  and  also
          filed an  overcharge  complaint.   Both  the  objection  and  the
          complaint were docketed under the same number.

               A copy of the objection was sent to the owner  on  September
          22, 1988.







               On October 10, 1988, the owner responded to  the  objection.
          The owner asserted that the complainant was  not  the  tenant  in
          occupancy on April 1, 1984 and thus was not eligible to challenge
          the April 1, 1984 rent.  Since the tenant at that  time  had  not
          challenged the registered rent, the registered rent was not 
          subject to challenge by  the  current  tenant.   The  owner  also
          asserted that extensive renovation work had been performed in the 
          subject apartment prior to the occupancy of the complainant, thus 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CK 410136 RT
          accounting for the large increase  in  rent.   As  proof  of  the
          renovation, the owner submitted copies  of  the  building  Notice
          Application, a Plumbing/Mechanical Equipment  Application  and  a
          floor plan of the subject apartment.  The owner requested a  four
          week extension so that it could get substantiating  cost  records
          of the renovation from the prior owners. 

               On October 26, 1988, the Administrator issued the order here 
          under review, finding that the tenant in occupancy had not  filed
          a registration objection, dismissing the complainant's  objection
          as untimely and terminating the proceeding.

               In the appeal, the tenant requests that the  Administrator's
          order be reversed because it is based on  a  misunderstanding  of
          the complaint and contains an error of fact.  The tenant contends 
          that the basis of her complaint was that the rent she  was  being
          charged was  excessively  greater  than  the  rent  paid  by  the
          previous stabilized tenant and was not justified by the  cost  of
          the  renovation  work.   The  tenant  also  contends   that   the
          Administrator ignored her assertion that there was no  tenant  in
          occupancy on April 1, 1984 so that any alleged service of the RR 
          1 would have been on a fictitious or illusory tenant.  The tenant 
          asks that a determination be made on the overcharge complaint.   

               The owner responds that since proper documentation of  proof
          of service of the RR-1 on the tenant in  occupancy  on  April  1,
          1984 was submitted and the tenant's objection was  untimely,  the
          objection was properly dismissed and the proceeding was correctly 
          terminated. 

               The Commissioner is of  the  opinion  that  this  proceeding
          should be remanded for further processing.

               Review  of  the  record  reveals  that  the  tenant   herein
          initiated two proceedings which  were  docketed  under  the  same
          number.  Only the  registration  objection  was  addressed.   The
          Administrator did not process the overcharge complaint.  Since   





          the complaint of overcharge was not adjudicated, the 
          Commissioner finds that this proceeding  should  be  remanded  so
          that  the  Administrator  may  properly  process   the   tenant's
          overcharge complaint.   Furthermore,  the  Administrator's  order
          also made no finding regarding the  tenant's  allegation  in  her
          overcharge complaint that the subject apartment was  vacant  from
          December 1983 to April, 1985, so that any  service  of  the  RR-1
          form on the tenant in occupancy on April  1,  1984  was  invalid.
          This issue should be resolved on remand. 

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

               ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the  same  hereby  is,
          remanded for further processing in accordance with this order and 
          opinion. 







          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CK 410136 RT
          ISSUED:







                                                                        
                                          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