DK210261RO

                                  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.: DK210261RO

                       GJETA VELI,               DRO DOCKET NO.: Z038366

                                                 TENANT:  VINCENT NOTO
                                    PETITIONER    
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                         AND
                         REVOKING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER



          On November 14, 1989, the above-named petitioner-prior owner filed 
          a Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on 
          October 13, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall 
          Street, Jamaica New York, concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 1955 East 17th Street, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No. 
          3, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner had 
          overcharged the tenant.

          The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the 
          provisions of Section 2526.1 of the Rent Stabilization Code 
          (hereafer RSC).

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was 
          warranted.

          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 originally commenced on November 30, 1984 by 
          the filing of a tenant objection to the initial registration by the 
          tenant.

          The complaint was served only on the prior owner who had 
          transferred title to the subject premises in January 1986.  The 
          prior owner failed to submit a substantive response to the tenant's 
          complaint.

          In Order Number Z038366, the Rent Administrator determined that 
          based on the owner's failure to submit either an initial apartment 
          registration (hereafter RR1) with proof of service or a complete 
          rental history from April 1, 1980 that the tenant had been 
          overcharged in the amount of $29,385.82, and directed the owner to 
          refund such overcharge to the tenant.  In addition, treble damages 
          were imposed and the rent frozen at $325.00 effective April 1, 
          1984.







          DK210261RO


          In this petition, the prior owner contends in substance that there 
          is no rent overcharge in that a previous order had been issued by 
          the Rent Administrator on November 28, 1988 under Z055336 addressed 
          to the current owner which had dismissed the tenant's objection to 
          the initial registration as untimely.

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

          Section 2528.2(d) of the RSC effective May 1, 1987 provides in 
          pertinent part that a copy of the Initial Apartment Registration 
          form (RR1) shall be served by certified mail on the tenant""" and 
          that any method of service permitted by the Division of Housing and 
          Community Renewal (DHCR) prior to May 1, 1987 shall be deemed to 
          have the same effect as certified service.

          Section 2526.1(a)(2)(ii) of the RSC limits the filing of objections 
          to the initial registered rent to within a 90 day period commencing 
          with the service of the required notice of registration on the 
          tenant.

          An examination of the records in this case discloses that the owner 
          is correct in its contention that prior order Z055336, issued on 
          November 28, 1988, properly dismissed the tenant objection filed on 
          November 30, 1984 because it was filed in excess of the statutory 
          90 days period after the receipt of the RR1 by the tenant on May 1, 
          1984.

          A review of the records in dockets Z038366 and Z055336 discloses 
          that the tenant had concurrently filed both tenant objection 
          dockets 038366 and 55336 on November 30, 1984; that on both tenant 
          objection forms the tenants had acknowledged receipt of the RR1 by 
          hand delivery but had not indicated the date received; that the 
          tenant failed to respond to the Rent Administrator's directive in 
          docket 055336 to state the date of receipt of the RR1; that only 
          the prior owner was served in docket 038366 and only the current 
          owner was served in docket 055336; and that the current owner had 
          submitted to docket 055336 a copy of the RR1 for the subject 
          apartment prepared on May 1, 1984 with a list of tenants' 
          signature, including the complainant's, acknowledging receipt of 
          RR1 forms on May 1, 1984.

          Further, a review of DHCR records indicated that the tenant failed 
          to file a timely petition for administrative review contesting 
          order Z055336 dismissing his objection to the initial registered 
          rent as untimely.

          Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 2528.2(d), the tenant was served 
          a copy of the Initial Apartment Registration on May 1, 1984 and 
          failed to file a timely objection to the initial registered rent in 
          accordance with Section 2526.1(a)(2)(ii) and therefore, the Rent 
          Administrator's processing of tenant objection 038366 as a timely 
          challenge to the initial rent and the finding of a subsequent 
          overcharge was not warranted and must be revoked.

          Accordingly, there was no rent overcharge.



          DK210261RO

          If the owner has already complied with the Rent Administrator's 
          order and there are arrears due to the owner as a result of the 
          instant determination, the tenant is permitted to pay off the 
          arrears in 24 equal monthly installments.  Should the tenant vacate 
          after the issuance of this order or have already vacated, said 
          arrears shall be payable immediately.

          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, granted, that the order of the Rent Administrator 
          be, and the same hereby is, revoked, and it is found that no rent 
          overcharge occurred.

          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