DOCKET NOS.:  DA910241RO, et al.
                              STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK  11433

     APPEAL OF                              ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW  
                                         :  DOCKET NOS. DA910241RO  DA910251RO
                                                        DA910242RO  DA910252RO
        BERRY ESTATES, INC.,             :              DA910243RO  DA910253RO
                                                        DA910244RO  DB910064RO
                        PETITIONERS      :              DA910245RO  DB910065RO
     ------------------------------------X              DA910246RO  DB910066RO
                                                        DA910247RO  DB910067RO
                                                        DA910248RO  DC910372RO
                                                        DA910249RO  DJ910358RO
                                            DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
                                            DOCKET NOS. SBD910001R    SBB910036R
                                                        SBB910027R   (SBH910001R)
                                                        SBB910003R    SBB910024R
                                                       (SBH910003R)  (SBH910009R)
                                                        SBB910041R    SBB910014R
                                                        SBE910003R    SBB910017R
                                                       (SBI910004R)   SBB910019R
                                                        SBA910001R    SBB910009R
                                                       (SBH910005R)  [SBH910004R,
                                                        SBB910023R     0009441] 
                                                       [SBH910004R,   SBB910028R
                                                      SBH910004R(A)]  SBB910008R
                                                        SBB910032R    SBB910010R
                                                        SBB910026R    SBB910002R,
                                                       (SBH910002R), respectively

     The above named petitioner-owner timely filed or refiled nineteen Petitions 
     for Administrative Review against orders issued by the Rent Administrator, 99 
     Church Street, White Plains, New York, concerning housing accommodations 
     known as various apartments, Blueberry Hill Apartments, Kearsing Parkway, 
     Monsey, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined, in part, that 
     the 1986 renewal lease for each of the subject tenants should have had a 
     commencement date of October 1, 1986, rather than the September, 1986 date 
     stated in the leases.  (The difference was important because the Rent 
     Guidelines Order in effect commencing October 1, 1986 provided for lower rent 
     increases than the prior Order.)

     The applicable section of the Tenant Protection Regulations is Section 

     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 
     by the administrative appeals.
     In these petitions the owner contends that the Rent Administrator's Orders 
     are incorrect and should be modified because the leases offered the tenants 

          DOCKET NOS.:  DA910241RO, et al.

     herein were on the same terms and conditions as the prior leases because the 
     rent payment dates thereof remained the first of each month.  The owner notes 
     that the Administrator's orders herein explicitly followed a prior decision 
     based on identical facts involving the same apartment complex, which decision 
     had been upheld by the Supreme Court, Rockland County, in In re Blueberry 
     Hill Corp., Index No. 230/88, May 16, 1988.

     However, the owner stated that that court decision was then under appeal and 
     the owner was therefore filing the instant appeals "in order to preserve its 
     rights," i.e., in the event that the owner prevailed in that then-pending 

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should be denied.

     The above-cited Supreme Court decision was affirmed by the Appellate 
     Division, Second Department, in In the Matter of Blueberry Hill Corp., 154 
     A.D.2d 670, 546 N.Y.S.2d 670 (Oct. 10, 1989), wherein the court stated, in 
     relevant part:

               "The [DHCR's] regulations provide that "[w]here a 
               landlord fails to offer a renewal lease in accordance 
               with [9 NYCRR 2502.4(a)] *** such lease whenever it is 
               offered shall commence *** on the first rent payment date 
               commencing 90 days after the date that the landlord does 
               offer the lease" (9 NYCRR 2503.5[b]).  It is uncontro 
               verted that the landlord did not offer a lease renewal as 
               required by 9 NYCRR 2503.5(a), and waited until June 20, 
               1986, to offer a renewal lease, and that the tenant 
               always paid rent on the first of the month.  The DHCR's 
               determination that the lease term commenced on October 1, 
               1986, rather than September 21, 1986, and that the 
               tenant's rent increase should be calculated based on the 
               guideline which went into effect October 1, 1986, was not 
               an unreasonable or irrational interpretation of its 
               regulations, and must be upheld (citation omitted.)"

     Accordingly, because the issues raised in the present nineteen substantially 
     identical petitions have been previously decided against the owner and 
     affirmed by the Appellate Division, these petitions are hereby denied under 
     the doctrines of collateral estoppel and stare decisis.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Tenant Protection Act and Regulations, it 
     ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied, and the 
     Rent Administrator's orders be, and the same hereby are, affirmed


                                                    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