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

          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.: EL130216RO,   
            Y. ZEVZAL REALTY ASSOC. C/O                                  
                                                  NO.: DE120043BO


               The above-named owner and tenant filed timely petitions for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 68-37 Yellowstone Blvd., Apt. C11 et al., 
          Forest Hills, 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 petitions.

               The issue before the Commissioner is whether the 
          Administrator's order was correct.

               The Administrator's order being appealed, DE120043BO was 
          issued on November 9, 1990. In that order, the Administrator 
          revoked the finding of 7MD06304Q issued April 21, 1989, that the 
          owner be denied eligibility for a 1986/87 Maximum Base Rent (MBR) 
          increase.  In consideration of the owner's challenge of the 
          previous order, the Administrator determined that contrary to the 
          finding in that order the owner had timely submitted an Affidavit 
          of Service of the Final Order of Eligibility upon the affected 
          tenants, said order having been issued by the Administrator on 
          September 30, 1988 (mailing date June 29, 1988), under the docket 
          #7M06304Q granting the owner eligibility to raise 1986/87 MBRs at 
          the subject premises.  As proof of its contentions of timely filing 
          and of notification of the tenants, the owner had submitted with 
          its challenge to the Administrator a list of tenants' signatures 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: EL130216RO, EK120265RT

          acknowledging receipt of the order.  All of the signatures were 
          accompanied by the tenant's apartment #, and most had been dated. 
          Those signatures that had been dated were dated during August, 
               In its appeal, the owner (Y. Zevzal Realty) raises strictly 
          technical grounds in opposition to the Administrator's order under 
          review herein.  The owner states that the language of the order 
          that reads:

                    "Landlord submitted affidavit....
                    Order of Eligibility issued April
                    21, 1989 hereby is restored (emphasis added)...
                    Therefore it is ordered that the ...order issued 
                    on April 21, revoked (emphasis added.)"

          should instead restore the order of eligibility issued on September 
          30, 1988. The owner requests that the Administrator amend its order 
          #DE120043BO accordingly.

               The petitioner-tenant in this appeal also cites the language 
          of the Administrator's order.  The tenant then proceeds to appeal 
          the order on more substantive grounds.

               The tenant contends on appeal that he was never served by the 
          owner with order #7M06304Q during August 1988 (or any other time 
          thereafter).  The tenant's appeal is accompanied by affidavits from 
          other tenants of the subject premises.  Each affiant testifies that 
          they were,similarly never served by the owner.  

               An examination of the list of tenants' signatures submitted by 
          the owner reveals that the petitioner-tenant, as well as other 
          tenants who submitted the above-described affidavits also signed 
          the list submitted by the owner in its challenge.  The tenant 
          contends that the list, relied on by the Administrator in finding 
          that the owner had timely served the tenants is a forgery.  The 
          tenant refers to several physical features of the list to "prove" 
          his contention.

               The Commissioner is the opinion that the allegedly confusing 
          language cited by both the owner and tenant on appeal is the result 
          of a clerical error.  A thorough reading of the record persuades 
          the Commissioner that the Administrator intended to revoke the 
          April 21, 1989 order.  The Commissioner notes that 7M06304Q stated 
          that the owner was eligible for 1986/87 MBR increases, subject to 
          inter alia its service of the Affidavit of Service upon the 

               7MD06304Q specifically stated that the owner had not made such 
          service.  Under DE120043BO the Administrator stated that "Landlord 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: EL130216RO, EK120265RT

          submitted affidavit stating all affected tenants were served."

               The Commissioner is thus of the opinion that the language of 
          this order can be read by a reasonable person as restoring the 
          order of eligibility issued September 30, 1988 and revoking the 
          order denying eligibility issued April 21, 1989.  

               The tenant complained of fraud in the owner's conduct.  This 
          allegation of fraud was made for the first time on appeal.  Due to 
          the nature of the MBR process in general and of this proceeding in 
          particular, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenant did 
          not have an opportunity to allege fraud below, and that the 
          Administrator was therefore not in error by not considering an 
          allegation of fraud when making its finding.  

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition, 
          filed with the Commissioner under docket # EL130216RO should be 
          remanded.  The Administrator is directed to hold hearings, if 
          necessary, to aid in its determination.  If the Administrator 
          concludes that the owner did act fraudulently and that the tenant 
          was never served, the Administrator is directed to affirm the order 
          of April 21, 1989 issued under docket #7MD06304Q, that the owner 
          failed to timely serve the order of eligibility issued on September 
          30, 1988 upon the affected tenants and to thus deny the owner's 
          eligibility for a 1986/87 MBR increase at the subject premises.  
          Upon such a finding of no eligibility, the Administrator is 
          directed to order the owner to make the appropriate refunds of 
          excess rent payment to tenants, and to adjust subsequent rent 
          schedules accordingly.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, it is

               ORDERED, that these petitions for administrative review be, 
          and the same hereby are, remanded to the Administrator.


                                                 LULA M. ANDERSON
                                                 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