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

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.  CA210224RO
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO.  13649
          MENDEL DRIZIN                          
                                                 TENANT:  NATAN KISHINEVSKY
                                PETITIONER    : 

               On December 31, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on 
          DEcember 1, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall 
          Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 3091 Brighton 5th Street,Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No. 
          5P wherein the Rent Administrator established the initial  legal 
          registered rent and directed the owner to refund excess rent in the 
          amount of $4,484.35 inclusive of excess security.

               The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the 
          provisions of Section 2522.3 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

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

               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 July 24, 1984 when the tenant 
          filed an objection to the initial registered rent, alleging that the 
          initial registered rent exceeded the fair market rent.

               In his initial response, the owner asserted that the tenant had 
          signed a statement dismissing the complaint.   In reply, the tenant 
          disavowed the signed statement, stating that although he had signed 
          the statement, he had no intention of withdrawing his complaint but 
          believed that by signing the statement, he was showing satisfaction 
          with the refrigerator provided by the owner.

               On December 26, 1984, the owner was served with the 
          requirements for processing a Fair Market Rent Appeal, including the 
          requirements for consideration of comparables, i.e. the rents of 
          comparable apartments.  The owner submitted only the leases of seven  
          substatntially similar apartments but did not submit substantiating 

               In the order hereunder appeal, the Administrator rejected the 
          comparables submitted by the owner and  established the legal rent 


          solely on the basis of the special guideline, finding that the owner 
          had collected excess rent.

                In his appeal, the owner contends that the order should be 
          reversed because:  1)  the tenant may not have timely filed  the 
          complaint which should have been filed within ninety days of service 
          of the initial registration;  2)  the tenant has waived the right to 
          a Fair Market Rent Appeal (FMRA) by accepting a Federal Section 8 
          rent subsidy;  the tenant did not object to the rent accepted by the 
          Federal Section 8 program as reasonable;  3) the Administrator erred 
          in not considering the comparables submitted by the owner and should 
          have considered the four year limitation on the overcharge found.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should 
          be remanded for further processing.
               The evidence of record indicates that the tenant filed the fair 
          market rent appeal within the required ninety day period.  Further 
          the tenant did not waive his right to file a fair market rent appeal 
          by accepting a Section 8 rent subsidy. 

               However,  with respect to the comparables submitted by the 
          owner, the Commissioner notes that the owner did not submit all the 
          information requested to receive consideration of the submitted 
          comparables.  However, review of the record reveals that the answer 
          packet sent to the instant owner was in accordance with the former 
          Rent Stabilization Code and not with the Rent Stabilization Code in 
          effect on May 1, 1987.  Due process requires that the owner be given 
          an opportunity to submit for consideration comparables as permitted 
          by the current Code.

               Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

               Ordered, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted 
          to the extent of remanding the proceeding for further processing in 
          accordance with this order and opinion.


                                          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