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
    

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