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. CF110143RT
NANCY LU, : DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
DOCKET NO.000053488
OWNER:GARY P. KLEINER
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 22, 1988 the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on May 24, 1988 by the
Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York concerning
housing accommodations known as Apartment F4 at 28-05 33rd Street,
Astoria, New York wherein the Rent Administrator dismissed the tenant's
registration objection as untimely.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Rent Administrator's order was
warranted.
The applicable sections of the Law are Section 26-516 of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Sections 2521.1 and 2526.1(a) of the Rent
Stabilization Code.
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 by the filing on November 13, 1984 of a
Tenant's objection to Rent/Services Registration by the tenant, in which
she stated that she had commenced occupancy on May 15, 1984 at a rent of
$460.82 per month, and that she was uncertain of the date that the
apartment registration had been delivered by hand. (The owner later
submitted a copy of a receipt signed by the tenant wherein she stated
that she had received it on August 8, 1984.)
In an order issued on May 24, 1988 the Administrator dismissed the
objection as having been filed more than 90 days after the tenant
received the registration.
CF110143RT
In this petition, the tenant contends in substance that the owner
deliberately neglected to put the former tenant's rent of $267.38 on her
lease; that she became aware only on November 3, 1984 that the prior
tenant had been paying about $260.00; that she immediately began calling
the owner, leaving numerous messages requesting that she be informed
immediately of the prior tenant's rent and of how her own rent of
$460.82 had been arrived at; that the owner did not return her calls
until the night of November 7, the 91st day; that he claimed that
$5,187.61 of improvements had been made; that this is unlikely; and that
her objection should not be terminated due to lateness, since such
lateness was due to the owner's lateness in giving her the information
that she needed to file a timely complaint.
In answer, the owner asserts in substance that the tenant's petition
does not deny that her objection was untimely.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
The RR-1 apartment registration form for 1984 informed the tenant that
if any information was incorrect, or if she believed that the rent shown
for April 1, 1984 was not the legal rent, she had 90 days to challenge
the registration. Because the apartment was vacant on April 1, 1984 the
owner did not have to list any rent being charged on that date, although
the tenant's objection states that the form listed the April 1, 1984
rent as being $460.82, which was her lease rent. Since the owner was
not obligated (or supposed) to list the prior tenant's rent on the form,
the registration would not be not made invalid if the owner had indeed
listed the complainant's rent. While the owner was supposed to list the
prior tenant's rent on the rent stabilization rider to the complainant's
lease, the failure to do so would just give reason for the tenant to
file an overcharge complaint. It has no bearing on the initial
registration of the apartment, or on the requirement to file on
objection to the registration within 90 days of its receipt. Since the
envelope bearing the objection was postmarked on November 13, 1984, 97
days after the tenant received the registration, the objection was
untimely, and it was proper for the Administrator to dismiss it.
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 Rent Administrator'order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|