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. CF210289RO

               Henry Bravo                :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE 
                                             DOCKET NO. 036564
                                            
                                             TENANT: Angela Rodriquez    

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

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


           On June 22, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition 
      for Administrative Review against an order issued on May 20, 1988, by a 
      Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations known as 
      apartment 7 at 349 Linden Street, Brooklyn, New York wherein the 
      Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the tenant.

           In the 1984 complaint by which this proceeding was commenced, the 
      tenant stated that she had received the registration form from the 
      owner.  In the ensuing aforementioned order, here appealed, the 
      Administrator stated that the complaint had been filed on November 7, 
      1984, and made his overcharge determination based on a rental history 
      starting with 1980.

           In appealing that determination the owner presents evidence that he 
      had caused the aforementioned registration form to be mailed to the 
      tenant on August 13, 1984, and argues that the complaint was filed more 
      than 90 days thereafter  (rendering erroneous the Administrator's 
      refusal to accept the rent charged on April 1, 1984, as lawful).  The 
      specific argument is that  (regardless of what is indicated by the date- 
      received stamp used by this Division)  the tenant signed the complaint 
      on November 25, 1984  (as she herself wrote under her signature 
      thereon). 

      The tenant's answer reads in its entirety:

           Please be informed that the date 11/25/84 which is
           on the Rent over-charge form is correct, it may
           have been that the Rent overcharge office made a 
           mistake when the date was stamped on the form.  I
           signed the form and immediately dated it.  Can your
           office please check and see if the mistake was on
           your part.

           Thank you, if any other information is needed please
           inform me right away.

           The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 
      denied.








           It is true that the tenant dated the signature on her complaint 
      "11/25/84," and that she insists that date was correct when written.  It 
      is also true, however, not only that the complaint was clearly date- 
      stamped "NOV 7 1984"  by this Division, but that the envelope in which 
      it was mailed  (attached to it in the Administrator's file and bearing 
      the proper address and return address)  bears a post-office stamp 
      reading "31 OCT 1984."

           In the face of such evidence the Commissioner will not credit the 
      tenant's 1988 assertion concerning when she signed the 1984 complaint, 
      and will instead find that it was indeed mailed in October 1984 and 
      stamped as received by the DHCR on November 7, 1984.  The complaint was 
      thus filed within 90 days of service of the registration form, so that 
      the Administrator was correct in finding a rent overcharge based on the 
      rental history from April 1, 1980, since the tenant had filed a timely 
      complaint as to the April 1, 1984 registered rent.  Accordingly, the 
      Rent Administrator's order was warranted.    

      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, denied, and, 
      that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby is, 
      affirmed.



      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