EL 510146-RT
                        STATE OF NEW YORK
                           GERTZ PLAZA
                     92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                     JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:
                                        EL 510146-RT
                                        DRO DOCKET NO.:
                        PETITIONER      CB 510165-R

On  December 4, 1990 the above-named petitioner-tenant refiled  a
Petition  for  Administrative Review against an order  issued  on
September  7,  1990  by a Rent Administrator  concerning  housing
accommodations known as Apartment 1-B at 19 Vermilyea Avenue, New
York,  New  York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined  that
the tenant had not been overcharged.

The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully considered
that  portion of the record relevant to the issues raised by this
administrative appeal.

This  proceeding was originally commenced by the filing of a rent
overcharge complaint by the tenant on February 2, 1988.

The  tenant  took occupancy pursuant to a three-year  lease  com-
mencing  March  2,  1983, and expiring January  31,  1986,  at  a
monthly  rent  of  $370.70.  The complaint also stated  that  the
previous tenant was under rent control at a much lower rent.

The  owner  was  served  with a copy of  the  complaint  and  was
directed  to submit a complete rent history from the  base  date,
including  copies  of all leases.  The owner complied  with  this
request.   The  owner also submitted a copy of the  initial  rent
registration  for April 1, 1984, with an affidavit  of  proof  of
service  on  the  tenant.  The section of  the  registration  for
listing the prior controlled rent was left blank.

In  Order  No. CB-510165-R issued on September 7, 1990, the  Rent
Administrator  determined that the initial legal registered  rent
of  $370.70  had been lawfully increased to $420.46 in accordance
with the orders of the Rent Guidelines Board, and that there were
no overcharges of the tenant's rent.

In  his petition, dated December 4, 1990, the tenant restates his
challenge  to the initial rent of $370.00 per month, because  the
landlord failed to inform him of the amount of rent paid  by  the
rent-controlled tenant.  The petitioner also contends that he was
never  served with the initial registration notice in 1984.   The
tenant  maintains  that the only form he ever  received  was  the
landlord's Report of Statutory Decontrol, which did not state the
rent-controlled tenant's rent.

The  Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should  be

The  record establishes that the tenant had been sent a  copy  of
the  initial registration statement in accordance with procedures
adopted and promulgated by the DHCR.  Although the tenant  denies
receiving it, the owner has submitted documentation of service on
the  tenant of the subject-building that has been deemed  by  the
Commissioner  as acceptable proof of service, in accordance  with
Section  2528.2(d)  of  the  current  Rent  Stabilization   Code.
Furthermore,  since  the tenant failed to challenge  the  initial
legal registered rent within 90 days of its mailing to him,  such
failure is sufficient under the  requirements of Section 2526  to
preclude any further challenge of that rent.

The tenant contends that in spite of the delay, he is required by
law  to be notified of the rent immediately prior to the date  of
statutory decontrol. The owner's copy of the initial registration
left this section blank. In effect, the tenant contends that  his
right to a fair market rent appeal must still be valid.

Prior to 1983, the Rent Stabilization Law and Code provided  that
when  the  first stabilized tenant took occupancy of an apartment
following decontrol from rent control by virtue of a vacancy, the
owner  was required to notify the decontrolling tenant "on  forms
prescribed  by the CAB [Conciliation and Appeals Board]"  of  the
new  tenant's  right  to file a fair market  rent  appeal  within
ninety days. The DC-2 notice form prescribed by the CAB asked the
owner  to set forth the applicable maximum rent (MBR) under  Rent
Control,  but no provision of the RSL or Code required the  owner
to supply such information.

These  circumstances were specifically recognized in the  Omnibus
Housing  Act (Section 15 of Chapter 403 of the Laws of  1983)  by
the  addition  of  a  new Section 26-517 (formerly  YY51-.6.0.6),
requiring an owner to register all stabilized apartments with the
DHCR.   Paragraph (c) therein provides that for units which  were
subject  to Rent Control immediately prior to the date of initial
registration,   in  addition  to  the  items  required   in   all
registrations,  the  owner  must  state  the  maximum  base  rent
immediately  prior to the date the housing accommodations  became
subject  to the Rent Stabilization Law.  Nevertheless,  paragraph
(e)   of  Section  26-513  (formerly  YY51-.6.0.2)  unambiguously
declares that:  "Notwithstanding any contrary provision  in  this
law  an application for adjustment pursuant to this section  must
be  filed within ninety days from the initial registration.  This
subdivision  shall not extend any other time limitations  imposed
by this law."

In  this  petition, the tenant contends that the owner failed  to
advise  him  by any means of the immediately prior  maximum  rent
(MBR)  under Rent Control.  The tenant raised that issue  in  the
complaint by claiming his initial rent was excessive  because the
apartment  had previously been under Rent Control.  However,  the
initial  registration statement duly informed the tenant  that  a
challenge to the initial rent for any reason is limited to ninety
days.  The tenant does not explain how he discovered that he  was
being overcharged so that he now chooses to exercise a right that
he  chose  to ignore when he was first notified of it four  years
earlier. The tenant was aware of the situation even before  that,
since  he  also  encloses the R-42, dated March 30,  1983,  which
stated  that he was the first tenant after the decontrol  of  the
apartment.   The  mere  fact that the MBR was  omitted  from  the
initial registration notice cannot override the stated intent  of
the  RSL to limit fair market rent appeals to within ninety  days
of the certified delivery of the registration on the tenant.

THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED,  that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  denied
and  that  the Rent Administator's order be, and the same  hereby
is, affirmed.


                                         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