ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EK430158RO

                                 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.: EK430158RO
           304 W. REALTY CO. BY THE ARGO CORP.
           C/O ROSENBERG & ESTIS, P.C. BY         DISTRICT RENT
           BLAINE Z. SCHWADEL, ESQ.               ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: DE420093BO(7MD07914M)
           
                                   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 304 West 75th Street, Various Apartments, 
          New York, New York.

               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, DE420093BO was 
          issued on October 19, 1990.  In that order, the Administrator 
          affirmed the finding of 7MD07914M issued May 12, 1989, that the 
          owner be denied eligibility for a 1986/87 Maximum Base Rent (MBR)_ 
          increase, due to the owner's failure to timely submit to the 
          Administrator an Affidavit of service, said Affidavit testifying 
          that the owner had served upon the affected tenants notice of its 
          eligibility to collect 1986/87 MBR increases.

               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 order of eligibility.  The owner also charges that the 
          D.H.C.R., by the order under appeal "exalts form over substance."

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should 
          be denied.
















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EK430158RO

               On October 20, 1986, under docket #7MI07914M 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 those 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 October 20, 1986 
          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 #7M07914M, issued by the 
          Administrator on September 30, 1988, (mailing date June 29, 1988), 
          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 September 20, 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 September 30, 1988 order 
          was addressed to the owner at its address of record as of both the 
          mailing and issue dates.

               As for owner's argument on appeal that the Administrator's 
          order "exalts form over substance":  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 New York City pursuant to legislation.  Although this 
          legislation does not specify each detail of the 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 September 30, 1988 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 mailing of the order by the DHCR or rebut the 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EK430158RO

          Commissioner's assumption of timely mailing by the DHCR, the 
          Administrator was correct and this petition should be denied.

               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