ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EH430181RO
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.: EH430181RO
MOTT AND PRICE SERVICE CORP. DISTRICT RENT
C/O KUCKER KRAUS AND BRUH ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NOS.: DF430045RO
7MI-4556M
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 181 East Broadway, N.Y.C. 10002.
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, DF430045BO was
issued on July 13, 1990. In that order, the Administrator affirmed
the finding of 7MD04556 issued May 5, 1989, that the owner be
denied eligibility for a 1986/87 Maximum Base Rent (MBR) increase,
due to the owner's failure to meet the violation certification
requirements necessary to the owner's being granted an MBR
increase.
On appeal, the owner argues that the Administrator's order is
in error, inasmuch as, that the owner had never received a copy of
the Final Order of eligibility, and therefore failed to submit an
affidavit of service upon the tenants of the final order of
eligibility.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
be denied.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EH430181RO
On January 28,1987, under Docket #7MI04556M, the Administrator
granted the owner interim eligibility to raise the 1986-87 MBRs at
the subject premises. This eligibility was granted on a
conditional basis. One of these conditions was service of the
order upon the affected tenants. As the owner did not serve the
order upon the tenants (The affidavit of service would certify
same), the Commissioner is of the opinion that the Administrator
was correct in denying owner's eligibility for a 1986/87 MBR
increase at the subject premises.
On appeal, and at challenge below, the owner has sought to
prove its timely receipt and service of the January 28, 1987
interim order. This matter is not at issue in the instant
proceeding. At issue is whether or not the owner timely received
the Administrator's Order of Eligibility 7MI04556M, issued by the
Administrator on January 28, 1987, said order granting the owner
eligibility to raise 1986/87 MBRs at the subject premises, subject
to the owner's timely serving of the order upon the affected
tenants at the subject premises.
The owner has not presented any proof either before the
Commissioner or before the Administrator that it did not receive
the June 29, 1988 order on a timely basis, nor that it received the
order for the first time on a later date. An examination of the
file reveals that the June 29, 1988 order was addressed to the
owner at its address of record as of both the mailing and issue
dates.
The purpose of service of owner's eligibility to raise MBRs
allows tenants the opportunity to learn of the basis of their rent
increase and to thus challenge its correctness, if necessary.
D.H.C.R. administers rent regulations in N.Y.C. pursuant to
legislation. Although this legislation does not specify each
detail of D.H.C.R.'s responsibilities (i.e., the 60 day service
period), the legislation does give the D.H.C.R., authority to enact
and enforce various procedural rules to aid it in the
Administration and enforcement of rent regulation rules and policy.
The D.H.C.R.'s authority to enact such procedures has been
supported by various court decisions.
The Commissioner is, therefore, of the opinion that inasmuch
as the January 28, 1987 order granted eligibility to raise MBRs
subject to the timely service of this order upon the affected
tenants, and that the owner has admittedly failed to make such
timely service, and that the owner has alternatively failed to
prove late and/or no mailing of the order by D.H.C.R. or rebut the
Commissioner's assumption of timely mailing by D.H.C.R., the
Administrator was correct and this petition should be denied.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, it is
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EH430181RO
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
|
