DHCR Decisions
FE 410181-RT
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.:
FE 410181-RT;
GRACE & JOHN PHILLIPS, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER CJ 410529-R
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION AND REMANDING PROCEEDING
TO ADMINISTRATOR
On May 16, 1991, the above-named petitioner-tenants filed a
Petition for Administrative Review of an order issued on May 6,
1991. The order concerned housing accommodations known as
Apartment 3 located at 182 East 104th Street, New York, New York.
The Administrator terminated the tenant's rent overcharge
complaint.
The tenants commenced this proceeding by filing a rent overcharge
complaint on August 17, 1988. The tenants stated that the owner
has not followed any of the DHCR rent guidelines and is charging
rent and requesting additional monies for repairs "as he
pleases." The tenants also stated that they moved into the
subject apartment on May 30, 1984 and the initial rent was
$200.00 per month increased to $250.00 pursuant to a lease
beginning May 1, 1988. The owner filed an answer to the
complaint. It was stated in the answer that the subject building
was not subject to rent regulation.
The owner claimed it possessed documentation corroborating this
allegation.
On March 8, 1991 the Administrator requested that the owner pro-
vide a rental history from April 1, 1984, proof of building
registration from 1984 to 1990 and a copy of the original Certi-
ficate of Occupancy. In response, the owner submitted a copy of
an order dated August 23, 1968 issued by the Office of Rent
Control stating that Apartment 1 of the subject building is not
subject to control. The Administrator also sent a request to the
tenants for a rental history from May 30, 1984 to May 1988, as
well as the number of apartments in the building. The tenants
failed to respond to this inquiry. The Administrator than issued
the order appealed from terminating the proceeding. The order
stated that the evidence indicated that the tenants had vacated
the apartment and the Division could not obtain information
necessary to process the case.
On appeal the tenants stated that they have not vacated the
apartment. Petitioners claimed that there are no mail boxes on
the premises and all their mail goes to a Post Office Box which
was the mailing address indicated by the tenants on the
complaint.
The owner did not file a response to the petition.
After careful review of the evidence in the record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be
remanded to the Administrator for further processing.
It is apparent that petitioners have not, in fact, vacated the
subject apartment. The Commissioner notes that the overcharge
complaint bears the mailing address petitioner desired
correspondence to be sent to. That address is the one set forth
in the petition for administrative review. The Administrator's
failure to send the requests for information to the proper
address constituted a failure to give due process warranting a
remand. On remand the Administrator should investigate and
determine the issue of whether the Division has jurisdiction over
this building. The Commissioner further notes that the tenants
petition states "we are not getting services. I request a rent
reduction." Petitioners are advised that, assuming DHCR has
jurisdiction over this building, the issue of failure to maintain
service is not an appropriate matter for resolution in an over-
charge proceeding but must be raised in a separate complaint
which the tenants may file.
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 Rent
Administrator for further proceedings consistent with this Order
and Opinion.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|