EF 510133-RT

                        STATE OF NEW YORK
                           GERTZ PLAZA
                     92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                     JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:
                                        EF 510133-RT
       GERARD DOUDEAU,                  DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                        PETITIONER      BG 510378-R

On  June  26,  1990,  the above-named petitioner-tenant  filed  a
Petition  for  Administrative Review against an order  issued  on
June   1,   1990  by  a  Rent  Administrator  concerning  housing
accommodations  known as Apartment 63 at 640 West  139th  Street,
New York, New York, wherein it was determined that the tenant had
not been overcharged.

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

This  proceeding was commenced by the filing of a rent overcharge
complaint by the tenant on July 23, 1987.

The tenant took occupancy pursuant to a one-year lease commencing
November  15, 1985, and expiring November 14, 1986, at a  monthly
rent of $742.00.

The  owner  was  served  with a copy of  the  complaint  and  was
directed  to submit a complete rent history from the  base  date,
including  copies  of all leases.  The owner complied  with  this

In  Order  No.  BG  510378-R issued on June  1,  1990,  the  Rent
Administrator  determined that the initial legal registered  rent
of $700.00 had been lawfully increased to $881.57 in accordance
with the orders of the Rent Guidelines Board, and that there were
no overcharges of the tenant's rent.

In  his petition, dated June 26, 1990, the tenant reiterates  his
challenge to his vacancy rent of $742.00 per month, stating  that
"other  tenants" told him that the apartment was vacant prior  to
his occupancy, and that the prior tenant, who was in occupancy at
least 12 years ago, had paid only $500.00 per month. Furthermore,
there  had  been  no renovating of the apartment.   Finally,  the
tenant  objects to the fact that the 1985 apartment  registration
he received - which listed the prior tenant as occupant - had not
stated  a time limitation for filing a challenge to the rent  and
it was thus improper to dismiss his complaint for being untimely.

In  its answer, the owner states that the 1985 registration lists
the rent on April 1, 1985, at which time the prior tenant was  in

The  Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should  be

In  the instant proceeding, the complainant took occupancy of the
subject-premises in November, 1985.  On July 23, 1987,  he  filed
an  overcharge  complaint  in which  he  challenged  the  initial
registered  rent  because he was told by his neighbors  that  the
apartment had been vacant prior to his occupancy and that, before
that,  the rent was much less than the amount on the registration

Although the tenant challenges the initial legal registered rent,
the  record  establishes  that  the  subject-premises  were  duly
registered in 1984, and that the prior tenant's rent on April  1,
1984,  was  adopted  as  the initial legal  registered  rent,  in
accordance with Section 2521.1(c) of the current Rent Stabiliza-
tion Code.  Section 2526 further provides that unless the initial
legal registered rent is successfully challenged by the tenant in
occupancy  within  90  days  of the mailing  of  a  copy  of  the
regis-tration  statement to the tenant, no  subsequent  challenge
may be entertained.

In  the  instant  proceeding,  the record  establishes  that  the
initial  registration of the apartment in 1984 had been filed  in
accordance  with  the above provisions of the Rent  Stabilization
Code.  Although the tenant alleges that the "prior" tenant's rent
was  only  $500.00, DHCR records confirm that the  apartment  was
properly  registered in 1984 at an initial rent  of  $700.00  and
that  this was never challenged by the initial registered tenant.
The  petitioner  offers  no credible evidence  that  the  initial
registered tenant was not the legal tenant of the apartment;  the
so called "other tenants" who told him otherwise are unnamed, and
their allegations are thus unverifiable.

Finally,  it  is noted that since the tenant was not eligible  to
challenge  the  initial registered rent, the annual  registration
will not state time limitations for filing overcharge complaints.
In  fact,  there are no such limitations.  The tenant's complaint
was  afforded  the  complete period of review for  which  he  was
eligible under Section  2521.1(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code,
being the adjusted rent subsequent to the initial registered rent
or the rent as stated in the annual registration filed four years
prior  to the most recent statement, whichever is later,  and  it
was properly determined that there were no overcharges.

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

ORDERED, that the tenant's petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.


                                   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