ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DL630221RO
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.: DL630221RO
J.M.J. REALTY CO.
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 65 East Gun Hill Road, Apts. B3, 11, 34,
42, 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, DE620080BO, was
issued on November 17, 1989. In that order, the Administrator
affirmed the finding of 7MD01903BX, 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
tenants 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 7M01903BX. 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,
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DL630221RO
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.
On appeal the owner purports to prove that it timely served
the affected tenants 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 tenants' names and addresses (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
An examination of the postal forms submitted by the owner on
review, as alleged proof of timely service of the order upon the
tenants reveals the following:
Except for the above-mentioned owner's and tenants' 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 tenants' 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 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 tenants were
timely served with the Order by the owner. The fact that the form
is otherwise incomplete indicates that it was never reviewed by
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, it is
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DL630221RO
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