FD 110020-RO
                                
                        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.:
                                        FD 110020-RO
       GEORGE SUBRAJ,                   DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                        NO.:
                        PETITIONER      CH 110188-R
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
        IN PART AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO ADMINISTRATOR
                                
                                
On  April 4, 1991, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Peti-
tion  for  Administrative Review against an  order  of  the  Rent
Administrator  issued  on March 12, 1991.   The  order  concerned
housing  accommodations known as Apartment 2-H, located at  88-05
Merrick  Blvd., Jamaica, New York.  The Administrator  determined
that the tenant had been overcharged.

The  Commissioner has reviewed the record and has carefully  con-
sidered that portion of the record relevant to the issues  raised
by this appeal.

The  tenant  commenced this proceeding by filing a  complaint  on
August 4, 1988 in which he indicated that he moved into the  sub-
ject apartment on January 16, 1985 at a rent of $514.00 per month
which  was  increased to $544.84 in 1986.  In  the  statement  of
complaint,  the tenant asserted that the owner owes  him  $705.00
consisting  of $47.00 per month for 15 months. The  remainder  of
his statement is illegible.

The  complaint was served on the owner named by the tenant in the
complaint along with an answer form.

Petitioner responded and alleged that 1) he was not the  building
owner, 2) the complaint was unreadable and did not provide proper
notice  of  the  tenant's complaint and 3)   that  the  complaint
lacked merit.  The Examiner's notes indicate that on December 27,

1990,  the  petitioner was asked to supply certain leases  and  a
copy  of  an MCI order granting a rent increase for the building.
There were no further submissions by the owner.

The  Administrator  calculated  a  total  overcharge  of  $630.07
including  interest.  In determining the lawful  rent  and  over-
charges,  the  Administrator incorporated a  rent  reduction  for
failure  to maintain services which was effective March  1,  1987
and  restored August 1, 1988.  No increases were given for  MCI's
because "the owner failed to provide updated information to  show
how the MCI's effected the rent."

On  appeal, the petitioner states that the initial complaint  was
unreadable  and  did not provide proper notice of  tenant's  com-
plaint.  He further states that even though DHCR was notified  in
April  1989 of the owner's new address, the Administrator  failed
to amend its records accordingly.

The tenant did not respond to the petition.

After  a careful review of the evidence in the record the Commis-
sioner is of the opinion that the proceeding must be remanded  to
the Administrator for reprocessing.

The  owner's  allegations regarding due process  violations  have
merit.   The Commissioner has examined the tenant's initial  com-
plaint  and agrees that the difficulty in reading item 10  denied
petitioner  his right to proper notice.  The owner in its  answer
sought clarification of the illegible portion but its request was
unanswered.   A check of DHCR records also indicates  that  peti-
tioner  did notify DHCR in the 1989 registration filed  in  April
1989  of its new address but the Administrator continued  to  use
the  address  indicated in the complaint.  Finally, there  is  no
evidence in the record that the Administrator asked the owner for
leases and it is not clear which "updated information" was needed
to  give  the  owner  the  benefit of the  MCI  orders  that  the
Administrator  did have.  This proceeding, accordingly,  must  be
remanded to the Administrator for reprocessing of the complaint.


THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it is

ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is granted to
the  extent  of  remanding this proceeding to the  District  Rent
Administrator  for  further processing in  accordance  with  this
order and opinion.  The automatic stay of so much of the District
Rent  Administrator's  order  as  directed  a  refund  is  hereby
continued until a new order is issued upon remand.  However,  the
Administrator's determination as to the rent is  not  stayed  and
shall  remain in effect, except for any adjustments  pursuant  to
lease  renewals, until the Administrator issues a new Order  upon
remand.


ISSUED:




ELLIOT SANDER
                                         Deputy Commissioner