EE 410136 RO

                                  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  SJR No. 6440
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. EE 410136 RO

                                              :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
               Koppel Management,                DOCKET NO. CH 410055 RP
                                                
                                                 TENANT: Marianne Strong      
                         
                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On May 17, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner refiled a petition 
          for administrative review of an order issued on December 13, 1989 by 
          a District Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 65 East 96th Street, New York, New York, Apartment No. 4B, 
          wherein the Administrator determined that the owner had collected 
          excess rent.

          Subsequently, the owner filed a petition in the Supreme Court in the 
          nature of mandamus pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law 
          and Rules for a judgment directing the DHCR to render a 
          determination of the petitioner's administrative appeal.

          By stipulation dated July 24, 1992, the court proceeding was 
          withdrawn on condition that the Division of Housing and Community 
          Renewal (DHCR) render a determination of the owner's petition for 
          administrative review within 60 days of July 24, 1992.

          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 March 15, 1984 upon the 
          filing of a fair market rent appeal and an overcharge complaint.  
          Both complaints were processed under Docket No. L 3116435 RT.

          On February 20, 1986, the Administrator issued an order under Docket 
          No. L 3116435 RT finding that the fair market rent appeal was not 
          filed within ninety days after receipt of the Initial Legal 
          Regulated Rent Notice.  Accordingly, the fair market rent appeal was 
          rejected and the case was processed as an overcharge complaint.  The 
          Administrator determined that an overcharge had occurred.

          The tenant filed a petition for administrative review of the above 
          order under Docket No. ART 08939 L.

          On August 5, 1988, the Commissioner granted the tenants' petition 
          for administrative review and ordered that this proceeding be 







          EE 410136 RO

          remanded to a District Rent Administrator for reprocessing as a fair 
          market rent appeal.

          On November 1, 1989, both parties were notified of the reopening of 
          the case pursuant to the Commissioner's order of remand.  The case 
          was reprocessed under Docket No. CH 410055 RP.

          In the order here under review, the Administrator found that the 
          owner had failed to furnish usable rent data required for 
          consideration of comparables.  Accordingly, the fair market rent was 
          determined solely on the basis of the Special Fair Market Rent 
          Guidelines.  The Administrator determined that the owner had 
          collected excess rents and security through October 31, 1989 
          totalling $40,182.52.

          In its petition for administrative review, the owner alleges that is 
          did not receive a copy of the Administrator's order until 44 days 
          after it was issued.  As such, the owner asserts that its petition 
          for administrative review should be deemed timely.  The owner 
          includes a copy of a misaddressed enveloped from DHCR to support its 
          claim.  Further, the owner states that if its petition is deemed 
          timely, it reserves the right to supplement its petition. 

          In her answer to the petition for administrative review the tenant 
          asserts, among other things, that the owner has made no specific 
          objections to errors of fact or law in the Administrator's order.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          this petition should be denied.

          The Commissioner finds that the owner has failed to state a cause of 
          action.  It is not DHCR policy to issue interlocutory orders 
          regarding the timeliness of administrative appeals.  It is well- 
          recognized that the proper administrative practice is for the 
          petitioner to address the merits of the case in the alternative in 
          a single pleading.

          In this case, the record indicates that all notices, with the 
          exception of the Administrator's order (Docket No. CH 410055 RP) 
          were sent to the correct address.  Yet the owner, in its petition 
          for administrative review makes no effort to explain its failure to 
          participate in the proceeding below.  Further, in the twenty-seven 
          months from the date of filing this petition, DHCR has received no 
          supplemental pleadings which address the merits of this case.

          Accordingly, even if this petition for administrative review were to 
          be declared timely, the Commissioner would be constrained to deny 
          the petition for its failure to cite objections to the 
          Administrator's order of December 13, 1989.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is



          ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and the 
          same hereby is, denied, and, that the Administrator's order be, and 
          the same hereby is, affirmed.


          EE 410136 RO


          ISSUED:



                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting 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