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
|
