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. DL630211RO
                                           :   DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR'S
           L. B. ASSOCIATES                    DOCKET NO. DE620058BO
                                           :             (7MD04364BX)
                            PETITIONER     
     --------------------------------------X

          
           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


     The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative review of 
     an order issued concerning the housing accommodations known as 1727 Walton 
     Avenue, apt. 36A, Bronx, NY. 

     The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has 
     carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues 
     raised by the petition.

     The issue before the Commissioner is whether the Administrator's order was 
     correct.

     The Administrator's order being appealed, DE620058BO, was issued on 
     November 17, 1989.  In that order, the Administrator affirmed the finding 
     of 7MD04364BX, issued May 12, 1989, that the owner be denied eligibility 
     for a 1986/87 Maximum Base Rent (MBR) increase, due to the owner's failure 
     to timely file with the Administrator an Affidavit of Service (Affidavit).  


     The timely submission of this Affidavit would have the effect of 
     certifying that the owner had timely served upon the affected tenant an 
     Order of Eligibility (Order) to increase MBRs at the subject premises for 
     1986/87.

     The Order was mailed by the Administrator to the owner on June 29, 1988, 
     under the docket number 7M04364BX.  The owner was explicitly notified on 
     the face of the Order (Part II(b)) that the submission of the Affidavit to 
     the Administrator was expected within 60 days of the mailing date of the 
     Order (i.e. by August 29, 1988).  On February 1, 1989 the Administrator 
     sent the owner a notice that, as the owner had not yet submitted the 
     Affidavit, it must do so within 20 days or else risk the Administrator's 
     denying it eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject premises for 1986/87.








          DOCKET NO.:  DL630211RO

     On appeal the owner purports to prove that it timely served the affected 
     tenant with the Order of Eligibility.  As alleged proof of this 
     contention, the owner submits on appeal a copy of a U.S. Postal form 
     apparently used as an application for certified or registered mail.  This 
     form contains the owner's name and address (as "sender") and the affected 
     tenant's name and address (as "addressee").  The form is stamped "August 
     29, 1988" with an official Post Office date stamp.

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

     An examination of the postal form submitted by the owner on review, as 
     alleged proof of timely service of the order upon the tenant reveals the 
     following:

     Except for the above-mentioned owner's and tenant's names and addresses 
     and the Postal date stamp, as well as a DHCR date stamp bearing the date 
     "December 21, 1989" (the date of the filing of the instant appeal) and a 
     private postage meter dated "August 29, 1988" the form is blank.  In an 
     area labeled "postage", the owner has written the tenant's Apartment#.  
     Otherwise, areas on the form which request the amount of postage being 
     paid, the number of pieces being mailed, various other charges etc., as 
     well as the area requesting a Postal employee's signature are blank.

     The Commissioner is of thus of the opinion that, with the sole exception 
     of the Postal stamp, the Postal form is not persuasive as to the owner's 
     contention on appeal, namely that the tenant was timely served with the 
     Order by the owner.  The fact that the form is otherwise incomplete 
     indicates that it was never reviewed by Postal personnel.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and Eviction 
     Regulations, 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.

     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