DHCR Decisions
Docket No. EB430300RO
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.: EB430300RO
DISTRICT RENT
The Argo Corporation C/O ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. by NO.: DE420047BO(7MD08247M)
Blaine Z. Schwadel, Esq.
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 200 West 86th Street, Various Apartments,
New York, New York.
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, DE420047BO was
issued on January 12, 1990. In that order, the Administrator
affirmed the finding of 7MD08247M issued April 21, 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 an Affidavit
of service with the Administrator, said Affidavit attesting to
the owner's timely service of notice of eligibility to raise
MBR's upon the affected tenants residing at the subject premises.
On appeal the owner asserts that the Administrator's Order
is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law inasmuch as the
owner never received copies of the order denying eligibility or
the Administrator's request for the Affidavit of Service, the
Administrator never granted the owner's request for on
inspection of the file, and the Administrator acted beyond the
scope of its authority by imposing upon the owner the requirement
to serve upon the Administrator an Affidavit of service within 60
days of the owner's receipt of the Order of Eligibility, said
requirement being above and beyond the statutority prescribed
certification requirements.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
be denied.
An examination of the record below indicates that all papers
mailed to the owner by the Administrator, in this proceeding both
those that the owner received and those the owner claims it never
received were mailed to the identical address. There is no
evidence in the record that would indicate that any item mailed
by the Administrator to the owner did not successfully reach its
intended destination.
Nowhere in the relevant regulations is it stated that a
petitioner review of the record is a necessary part of the
Administrative process. The Commissioner is of the opinion that,
at any point in the proceeding the owner (or any other party) was
allowed to request access to the record by making a request to
review the record under a Freedom of Information Law request to
the D.H.C.R.
Enabling legislations exists under which the D.H.C.R. is
authorized to enact whichever additonal filing requirements it
believes will best facilitate its judgement as to granting or
denying MBR eligibility. This legislation has been upheld by
various Court decisions.
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
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
|
|