ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EH430164RO

                                 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.: EH430164RO

           MOTT AND PRINCE SERVICES CORP.
           C/O KUCKER, KRAUSE & BRUH              DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: DF430044BO
                                                       (7MD05421M)
                                   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 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 
          be denied.

               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.

          ISSUED:


                                                                             
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             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