STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
SHARON EPSTEIN (HIGDON), DISTRICT RENT
PETITIONER DE 410021-R
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 27, 1991, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a Peti-
tion for Administrative Review of an order issued on May 1, 1991,
by a Rent Administrator concerning housing accommodations known
as Apartment 1-W at 149 East 81st Street, New York, New York,
wherein the District Rent Administrator determined that there had
been no overcharge of the tenant's rent.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced by the filing of a rent overcharge
complaint by the tenant, on April 24, 1989.
The tenant took occupancy pursuant to a one-year lease commencing
August 1, 1983, and expiring on July 31, 1984, at a monthly rent
of $1,144.00. The tenant was timely served with a copy of the
1984 initial registration for the apartment.
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
In Order No. DE 410021-R issued on May 1, 1991, the District Rent
Administrator determined that the initial legal registered rent
of $1,144.00 had been lawfully increased to $1,432.01 in
accordance with the orders of the Rent Guidelines Board, and that
there were no overcharges of the tenant's rent.
In her petition, dated May 27, 1991, the tenant restates her
challenge to the initial rent of $1,144.00 per month. She
contends that she had no reason to suspect that her initial rent
was incorrect at the time of the registration, but that recently
other tenants in her building have discovered that they were
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
Although the tenant challenges the initial legal registered rent,
the record establishes that the subject-premises were duly
registered in 1984, and that the complainant's rent on April 1,
1984 was adopted as the initial legal registered rent, in
accordance with Section 2521.1(c) of the current Rent
Stabilization Code. Section 2526 further provides that unless the
initial legal registered rent is successfully challenged by the
tenant in occupancy within 90 days of the mailing of a copy of
the registration statement to the tenant, no subsequent challenge
may be enter-tained.
In this case, although the tenant contends that the absence of
information about the fair market value of the apartment or the
prior tenant's rent was the reason she did not challenge the
initial registration within 90 days, this is insufficient to
override the clearly stated timeliness requirements of the Rent
Stabilization Code. Therefore the Administrator properly limited
review of the lease history to the period subsequent to the
initial registration. The finding that there were no overcharges
was also properly determined. As there are no other allegations
of defects in the order, it is affirmed in its entirety.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that the tenant's petition be, and the same hereby is
denied; and that the Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.