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
|
