DF 110349 RT
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. DF 110349 RT
: DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
Josephine Toscano, DOCKET NO. CE 110027 R
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 30, 1989, the above-named tenant refiled a Petition for
Administrative Review of an order issued on December 13, 1988 concerning
the housing accommodations known as 11-15 46th Road, Apartment 1B, Long
Island City, New York, wherein the Administrator determined that the
owner had not overcharged the tenant.
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 of a rent overcharge
complaint by the tenant on April 30, 1988. The tenant stated that she
had not been served with the Initial Apartment Registration Form.
The owner was served with a copy of the tenant's complaint and submitted
a complete lease history as required. In addition, the owner submitted
a copy of the Initial Apartment Registration Form and proof of service
of the Initial Apartment Registration Form.
It is noted that the amount of rent indicated on the registration was
$370.45 while the owner-submitted lease indicated that the monthly
rental was $307.45 on April 1, 1984.
In the order here under review, the Administrator found that the subject
apartment was duly registered, the owner had properly served the tenant
and the tenant did not file a timely objection to the registration.
Based on the registered rent of $370.45, the Administrator determined
that no overcharge had occurred.
The tenant filed a petition for administrative review. On June 23,
1989, the Commissioner rejected this petition because of a procedural
error. On June 30, 1989, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR) received the tenant's refiled and corrected petition. In the
refiled petition for administrative review, the tenant asserts that the
Administrator erred in using the registered rental figure of $370.45 and
not the actual rental amount of $307.45. Further, the tenant reasserts
that she was not served with a copy of the Initial Apartment
Registration.
DF 110349 RT
In its answer to the petition for administrative review, the owner
asserts that the refiled petition was untimely and should be dismissed.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
this petition should be denied.
The owner's contention that the refiled petition for administrative
review is untimely is without merit. As noted above, the petition was
refiled only seven days after it was rejected by DHCR.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator correctly determined that
the subject apartment was duly registered and that the tenant was
properly served. Prior to May 1, 1987, the acceptable methods of
proving service on the tenant of the initial registration were specified
in the DHCR's registration instructions. One of the three acceptable
methods for proving this service on the tenant was the submission of a
signed and dated form #PO 3877, "Acceptance of Registered, Insured,
C.O.D., and Certified Mail," which proves the date of delivery of first
class mail to the Post Office.
In this case, the owner has complied with the proof of service
requirements. On the other hand, the tenant presents no documentation
to support her assertion of lack of service. Accordingly, the
Administrator correctly found that the tenant was served with the
initial registration.
Further, the Commissioner finds that the Initial Registration was
acceptable despite the misstated rental amount. Clearly, this
misstatement was merely a typographic error based on the transposition
of two numbers.
However, the Administrator should have based his determination of
overcharges on the figure of $307.45 and not $370.45.
A review of the calculations indicates that based on a initial
registered rent of $307.45 no overcharges occurred.
@ Base Rent April 1, 1984 through April 31, 1985: $307.45
@ May 1, 1985 through April 31, 1987: legal rent and actual
rent is $335.12 (guideline 16 - $307.45 plus 9%)
@ May 1, 1987 through April 31, 1989: legal rent and actual
rent is $380.28 (guideline 18 - $335.12 plus 9% plus
$15.00)
Accordingly, the Administrator's correctly concluded that no overcharge
occurred.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization
Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and the same
hereby is, denied, and that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and
the same hereby is, affirmed; it is
DF 110349 RT
FURTHER ORDERED, that the Initial Apartment Registration be amended to
reflect an initial stabilization rent of $307.45 and not $370.45.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
