ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CC520361RT
                                  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.: CC520361RT 

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NOS.: ZAF520413R 
               MRS. WENDELL L. PAYNE,                   ZBB520383R
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X

                     ORDER AND OPINION DENYING TENANT'S PETITION
                              FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               On March 24, 1988, the above named petitioner-Mrs. Wendell L. 
          Payne filed a Petition for Administrative Review against an order 
          issued on March 11, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, Gertz Plaza, 
          Jamaica, NY concerning housing accommodations known as Apartment 24 
          at 4648 Broadway, New York, NY, wherein the Rent Administrator 
          terminated the proceeding as it was previously resolved under 
          docket # ZAF520413R with an order issued on June 27, 1987.

               The issue in this appeal is whether the tenant's PAR is barred 
          by the doctrine of res judicata.  The underlying 1987 order set the 
          initial legal rent stabilized rent as $275.  the subject former 
          rent controlled apartment had been placed under jurisdiction of 
          rent stabilization effective May 1, 1982 pursuant to Article XV of 
          the Private Housing Finance Law.

               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 petition for administrative 
          review.

               The initial proceeding under order # AF520413R was commenced 
          on June 23, 1986, by the filing of a tenant's overcharge complaint 
          in which the tenant alleged that the owner is collecting $275.00 
          per month in rent, and that the complainant's apartment is subject 
          to rent control.  The tenant further alleged that the 
          rehabilitation work in the apartment was done in a shoddy fashion.

               The complainant commenced occupancy in the subject apartment 
          on January 4, 1934 at a monthly rent of $60.















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CC520361RT

               The tenant further claimed that the rent was $107.21 as of 
          March 31, 1980.  The rent was raised to $260 on May 1,1982 
          following building rehabilitation and to $275 as of May 1, 1983.

               On August 4, 1986 the subject owner filed its response which 
          pointed out that three adjacent buildings (including the subject 
          4648 Broadway were rehabilitated in 1981-1982.  The owner contends 
          that all apartments in the affected buildings went from rent 
          control to rent stabilization by operation of law. the owner 
          further contends that the tenant has refused to sign a valid rent 
          stabilized lease and that the renovations were approved by the City 
          of New York.

               The agency's R-2 Card reflects that the subject apartment was 
          stabilized effective May 1, 1982 pursuant to order # ZAC5290 in 
          accordance with provisions of Article XV of the Private Housing 
          Finance Law.

               On June 22, 1987 the Rent Administrator issued an order # 
          ZAF520413 finding that there was no rent overcharge and therefore 
          terminating the proceeding.

               The Rent Administrator reached the above outcome by first 
          finding the subject apartment to be rent stabilized, and that the 
          $275 rent charged by the owner on June 18, 1986 was consistent with 
          the $275 initial legal registered rent registered on April 1, 1984.  
          Further the administrator found that the required 1984 apartment 
          registration form was properly served by the owner on the tenant of 
          record.

               The tenant's request to reopen order #ZAF20413R was denied. 
          The tenant failed to file a timely PAR to order # ZAF520413R.  
          While # ZAF520413 was still pending the tenant on February 12, 1987 
          filed the second rent overcharge complaint asserting an identical 
          rent history.  The second complaint was docketed # ZBB520383R.

               The owner answered the tenant's complaint on March 1, 1987 
          pointing out it was a multiple complaint of rent overcharge.  The 
          owner again noted that the building was rehabilitated in 1982 and 
          all tenants were made rent stabilized instead of rent control.

               On March 11, 1988 the same rent administrator issued an order 
          under docket # ZBB520383R terminating the proceeding as the matter 
          was previously resolved under docket # ZAF520413R.






               The tenant filed a Petition for Administrative Review on March 
          24, 1988 citing both the June 22, 1987 order #ZAF520413R and the 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CC520361RT

          March 11, 1988 order #ZBB520383R.  The tenant in her PAR contends 
          she is a statutory tenant as she moved into the apartment on 
          January 4, 1934.

               It should be noted that the tenant's PAR is untimely as she 
          was obligated to file a PAR within thirty-five days of issuance of 
          the first order issued June 22, 1987.  The tenant's second 
          complaint was properly terminated as repetitious.

               The doctrine of res judicata bars the tenant from filing a 
          second application for identical relief.  The Rent Administrator 
          was accordingly correct in terminating the second petition.

               Further, a review of tenant's petition on the merits would 
          also result in the petition being denied.

               The rent agency's record reflects that the Department of 
          Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York (HPD) 
          issued an order on April 28, 1982, under Docket No. 2ACS5290, which 
          stated that:

                    Article 15 of the Private Housing Finance Law
               provides that the Agency may grant a rehabilitation loan, 
               in participation with a private lending institution, and 
               that the Agency shall after the completion of the 
               rehabilitation of a multiple dwelling, establish initial
               rents for all rental units in the multiple dwelling 
               whether stabilized, controlled or not currently subject
               to regulation.  Pursuant to Section 804 of the Private
               Housing Finance Law, after the establishment of rents, 
               the owner shall offer tenants in occupancy a new two year
               lease at such rent.  A tenant may sign such a lease or 
               request a one year lease if he or she wishes to remain in
               occupancy; in either case, the owner may demand the new
               rent established herein from the effective date of this 
               Order and Report.  Subsequent rent increases and lease
               renewals are subject to the laws, rules and regulations
               of the rent stabilization system.










               The above-mentioned order determined that the subject 
          apartment "was rehabilitated pursuant to Article 15 of the Private 
          Housing Finance Law," and established a new initial rent for the 
          subject apartment of $275.00 per month, effective May 1, 1982, 












          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CC520361RT

          pursuant to the applicable section of the Private Housing Finance 
          Law.  The order further stated that, "by operation of law, units 
          heretofore subject to the rent control laws are no longer 
          controlled and are hereby stabilized on such effective date." 

               In the order under review herein, the Administrator noted that 
          pursuant to Article 15 of the Private Housing Finance Law the 
          subject apartment was decontrolled, and that the order issued by 
          HPD established the subject apartment's initial regulated rent at 
          $275.00 per month, effective on May 1, 1982.  The Administrator's 
          order also determined that the owner served the apartment 
          registration form on the subject tenant; that, "The rent charged 
          and controlled by the owner at time of the tenant's complaint is 
          the same amount set forth as the Initial Legal Registered Rent"; 
          that the subject tenant did not file a timely objection to the 
          initial rent, and therefore the April 1, 1984 registered rent of 
          $275.00 per month is the initial legal regulated rent for the 
          subject apartment.

               The record reflects that the tenant did in fact file a timely 
          objection to the apartment registration.

               However, pursuant to the HPD's order, the Commissioner finds 
          that the subject apartment as of May 1, 1982, became rent 
          stabilized, and that the subject apartment is presently under the 
          jurisdiction of the Rent Stabilization Law and Code.

               As the order issued by HPD established the subject apartment's 
          initial legal regulated rent at $275.00 per month, and that the 
          tenant admits that $275.00 per month is the amount that the subject 
          owner was collecting at the time of the commencement of the 
          overcharge complaint, the Commissioner finds that the 
          Administrator's order should not be disturbed, and that the 
          aforementioned HPD order is binding on the parties to this 
          proceeding.

               The Commissioner notes that this order is being issued without 
          prejudice to the tenant's right to file a complaint for a reduction 
          of rent due to a diminution of services, if it is warranted, under 
          the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law and Code.  The 
          Commissioner further notes that this order does not prejudice the 
          tenant's right to file a future overcharge complaint, if it is 
          warranted, under the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law and 
          Code.
               

               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 Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
          is, affirmed.






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CC520361RT


          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