STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. DL630218RO
: DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR'S
JOSEPH GERSHENOV DOCKET NO. DE620070BO
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 2917 Grand
Concourse, Apt. 53B, 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
The Administrator's order being appealed, DE620070BO, was issued on
November 17, 1989. In that order, the Administrator affirmed the finding
of 7MD02403BX, issued May 5, 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
The Order was mailed by the Administrator to the owner on June 29, 1988,
under the docket number 7M02403BX. 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 January 27, 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.: DL630218RO
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
Except for the above-mentioned owner's and tenant's name and address 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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA