ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EK430306RO 


                                 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.: EK430306RO

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
               PARCEL 242, INC. c/o               ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
               ROSENBERG & ESTIS, P.C. by         NO.: DF420033BO(7MD03202M)
               BLAINE Z. SCHWADEL, ESQ.
                                   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 242 East 72nd 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, DF420033BO was 
          issued on November 2, 1990.  In that order, the Administrator 
          affirmed the finding of 7MD03202M 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 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.  In that lower order, 
          the Administrator found specifically that the owner had failed to 
          timely submit an Affidavit of service (Affidavit) to the DHCR, said 
          Affidavit asserting that the affected tenants had been served with 
          Notice of the owner's eligibility to raise 1986/87 MBR at the 
          subject premises.

               On appeal, the owner alleges that it did not timely serve the 
          Affidavit upon the tenants because the DHCR did not serve the order 
          of eligibility upon it on a timely basis.  The owner claims that 
          Administrator's Order # 7M03202(7MI03202M) conditionally granting 














          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EK430306RO 



          the owner eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject premises and 
          dated June 29, 1988 was not served upon the owner until February 1, 
          1989.  The owner submits on appeal documentation vouching to the 
          owner's serving the tenants upon its "receipt" of the conditional 
          order of eligibility.  The owner also claims that the Administrator  
          by its decision "exalts form over substance."

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

               On June 29, 1988, under docket # 7M03202 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.

               An examination of the record below reveals that all papers 
          served upon the owner by the Administrator were properly addressed, 
          either to the owner or to the owner's counsel.  The Commissioner is 
          of the opinion that the owner has thus failed to prove that it did 
          not receive the order when it was issued or, conversely that it 
          received the order for the first time in February 1989.

               As for owner's arguments 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.

               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 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EK430306RO 



          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:





                                                                           
                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  Deputy Commissioner