ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EH430164RO
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.: EH430164RO
MOTT AND PRINCE SERVICES CORP.
C/O KUCKER, KRAUSE & BRUH DISTRICT RENT
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 31-33 Market Street, various apartments,
New York, N.Y.
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, DF430044BO was
issued on July 9, 1990. In that order, the Administrator affirmed
the finding of 7MD05421M issued May 12, 1989, that the owner's
Order of Eligibility be revoked for the 1986/87 Maximum Base Rent
(MBR) increase, due to the owner's failure to submit to the
Administrator an Affidavit of Service indicating that the owner had
served the affected tenants with the Final Order of Eligibility
(Final Order) mailed to the owner by the Administrator on June 29,
1988 under the docket #7M05421M.
On appeal, the owner contends that it did not serve the Final
Order of Eligibility on the tenants because it never received the
Final Order from the Administrator. The owner further contends
that it was first notified of the existence of the Final Order by
a letter dated December 30, 1988 that it received from the
Administrator. The owner additionally maintains on review that,
inasmuch as the owner filed an Affidavit of Service of the Interim
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EH430164RO
Order of Eligibility (Interim Order), issued by the Administrator
on September 4, 1986 under docket #7MI05421M, and that the Interim
and Final Orders were identical in content, owner's failure to
serve the final Order on the tenants is superfluous.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
The Final Order made the owner's eligibility to increase
1986/87 MBRs contingent upon, inter alia the owner's service of the
Final Order upon the affected tenants. The owner has conceded on
appeal that it did not perform such service.
An examination of the record reveals that the Administrator
mailed the Final Order to the Administrator at the owner's address
of record as of June 29, 1988, and that the U.S. Postal Service
delivered the Final Order to the owner. The Commissioner is thus
of the opinion that the Administrator was correct in finding that
the owner should be denied eligibility to raise 1986/87 MBRs at the
subject premises, due to its failure to timely file the Affidavit
of Service on the Administrator.
As to the owner's arguments on appeal that due to its service
of the Interim Order on the affected tenants its service of the
Final Order is irrelevant: An examination of the record reveals
that, as per the owner's contention on appeal the Final Order is
basically an affirmation of the Interim Order. The Commissioner
notes, however, that the instructions to the owner contained in the
Final Order were unambiguous: owner's eligibility to raise 1986/87
MBRs at the subject premises was contingent upon the owner's
service of the Affidavit upon the Administrator. The Commissioner
thus cannot consider the owner's arguments concerning the relevance
of the Final Order.
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