DF 110349 RT

                                STATE OF NEW YORK
                          OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                   GERTZ PLAZA
                             92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                             JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. DF 110349 RT

                                          :  DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
           Josephine Toscano,                DOCKET NO. CE 110027 R

                            PETITIONER    : 


      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 

          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 

      Accordingly, the Administrator's correctly concluded that no overcharge 

      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.


                                      JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Acting 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