STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.EJ410330RT
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO.CG410081RP
               MIRANDA BEESON       

                                PETITIONER    : 

               On October 10, 1990, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on 
          September 7, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall 
          Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 200 West 20th Street, New York, New York, Apartment No. 
          1204, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that there was no 
          rent overcharge and that the tenant was not eligible to file a fair 
          market rent appeal.

               The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the 
          provisions of Sections 2526.1 and 2522.3 of the Rent Stabilization 

               The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was 

               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 in July, 1984, by the 
          tenant's filing of an objection to rent in which the tenant stated 
          that she was filing a fair market rent appeal and a rent overcharge 

               In response to the tenant's complaint the owner submitted a 
          copy of a Notice of Initial Legal Regulated Rent (hereafter DC-2 
          notice) and proof that said notice was served by certified mail on 
          the first rent stabilized tenant of the subject apartment (tenant 
          prior to complaining tenant herein) on January 26, 1980.  The owner 
          requested, based on this evidence, that the tenant's fair market 
          rent appeal be dismissed.  Subsequently on July 5, 1985, the owner 
          submitted a complete rental history for the subject apartment from 
          January 18, 1980 (initial occupancy of first rent stabilized tenant) 
          including copies of leases.  It appears that this submission was 
          served on the tenant.

               On July 30, 1985, under Docket 1436, the Rent Administrator 
          issued an order dismissing the fair market rent appeal and finding 


          that no rent overcharge had occurred.

               On August 23, 1985, the tenant filed a petition for 
          administrative review against the July 30, 1985 order stating in 
          substance that the order was made without any reference to the 
          tenant's request for an extension of time to review the owner's 
          leases and rent history submitted to the tenant for review.  This 
          was needed since the tenant is not sure of the period the prior 
          tenant occupied the subject apartment.  An order was then issued by 
          the Commissioner on July 21, 1988 under docket number ART04645L, 
          remanding the proceeding to the Rent Administrator for further 
          consideration since the record was not adequate to form the basis 
          for a proper determination of the issues.

               In the remanded proceeding, the tenant submitted a copy of a 
          PAR determination (AI410006RT) for another apartment in the subject 
          premises.  In that case, it was held that a DC-2 notice sent to a 
          prior tenant was invalid to start the running of the ninety day 
          period to file a fair market rent appeal because said DC-2 notice 
          was accompanied by a cover letter which ignored the information on 
          the DC-2 notice regarding the use of the special fair market rent 
          guidelines in establishing fair market rents; referred to other 
          comparable rents in the area without indicating that such rents may 
          be unlawful and thus not usable in a comparability study; and 
          incorrectly stated that the maximum base rent (hereafter MBR) figure 
          on the notice does not affect the tenant's rent.  Further in that 
          case, the prior tenant submitted an affidavit to the effect that 
          based on the cover letter, she did not believe that her rent could 
          be contested if it was to be based on comparable rents rather than 
          the MBR.  The tenant's representative herein also stated that she 
          had contacted the prior tenant in the proceeding and that said prior 
          tenant did not recall having received a DC-2 notice.  The owner 
          submitted a rental history for the subject apartment on May 16, 1990 
          upon being directed to do so by the DHCR.  

               In the order under appeal herein, the Rent Administrator again 
          determined that the tenant herein was not eligible to file a fair 
          market rent appeal and that no rent overcharge had occurred.

               In this petition, the tenant alleges in substance that the DC-2 
          notice should be declared invalid because the owner added to it the 
          phrase "This rent is based on comparable rents in this building"; 
          that such misrepresentation is similar to that which occurred under 
          Docket AI410006RT; that based on such invalidity, the tenant herein 
          should be deemed to have filed a timely fair market rent appeal; and 
          that the tenant was never sent the owner's May 16, 1990 submission 
          of rental history and therefore could not comment on same.

               In order to ensure due process, on December 3, 1993, the DHCR 
          sent to the tenant and tenant's representative copies of the rental 
          history submitted by the owner on May 16, 1990 with an opportunity 


          to comment on same.  In a response dated December 20, 1993, the 
          tenant's representative stated in substance that a copy of the lease 
          in effect on April 1, 1980 had never been submitted by the owner in 
          the proceeding filed under docket number 1436 and was not submitted 
          for the first time until May 16, 1990 so that this material should 
          not be accepted since it was submitted so late.  The tenant's 
          representative further questioned the validity of the initial lease 
          effective from January 18, 1980 to April 30, 1981 since it covers a 
          period of one year three and a half months - not the standard 
          practice used by landlords in writing leases  - and further stated 
          that other leases for the prior tenant were for the standard one or 
          two year period.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 

               The Commissioner finds that the tenant's contention, that the 
          DC-2 notice submitted was rendered defective by the cited insertion, 
          is without merit.  The DC-2 notice stated that the 1974 maximum rent 
          for the subject apartment was $163.30 and advised that if the 
          initial legal regulated rent exceeded this figure by certain 
          amounts, the first stabilized tenant was entitled to file a fair 
          market rent appeal.  Therefore the first stabilized tenant was 
          sufficiently advised of her right to file a fair market rent appeal.  
          The addition of the phrase "This rent is based on comparable rents 
          in this building" is not sufficient to render the DC-2 notice 
          invalid.  Accord: BE410437RO, Request for Reconsideration Denied - 
          Dec. 13, 1991.  The case cited by the tenant in her appeal - 
          AI410006RT - is clearly distinguishable since in that case a 
          misleading cover letter was sent to the first stabilized tenant 
          along with the DC-2 notice and the first stabilized tenant submitted 
          an affidavit to the effect that she was misled by said cover letter.  
          There are no such factors in the case at bar.

               Further an examination of the rental history for the subject 
          apartment discloses that no rent overcharge occurred.  Moreover, 
          contrary to the tenant's contention, the owner first submitted a 
          copy of the initial stabilized lease on July 5, 1985 and the tenant 
          has submitted no evidence to substantiate her contention that the 
          initial lease was not valid.  Accordingly, the Rent Administrator's 
          order was warranted.


               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of 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 order of the Rent 
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.


                                          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