FG 110167-RT
                        STATE OF NEW YORK
                           GERTZ PLAZA
                     92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                     JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:
                                        FG 110167-RT
         VICKI SQUIRE,                  DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                        PETITIONER      CL 110286-R

On  July 5, 1991, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a Peti-
tion for Administrative Review against an order issued on June 6,
1991  by  a  Rent Administrator concerning housing accommodations
known  as  Apartment  5-G at 134-37 Maple Avenue,  Flushing,  New
York, wherein the District Rent Administrator determined that the
tenant had not been overcharged.

The   issue   in  this  appeal  is  whether  the  District   Rent
Administrator's order was warranted.

The applicable sections of the Law are Section 26-516 of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Sections 2526.1(a) and 2523.5 of  the  cur-
rent Rent Stabilization Code.

The  Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the  record
and  has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.

This  proceeding  was  originally  commenced  by  the  filing  on
November  12, 1988 of a rent overcharge complaint by the  tenant,
in  which she stated that she had commenced occupancy on  January
15,  1980  pursuant to a two-year lease at a rent of $365.00  per

The owner filed an initial registration statement for the subject
premises  effective April 1, 1984.  The registration  stated  the
legal rent was $390.55.

The  owner  was served with the complaint and directed to  submit
documentation able to substantiate all rent increases  since  the
base date.

Subsequently,  in response to a request for further documentation
from  the  DHCR dated March 15, 1991, the tenant stated that  her
initial  lease was the only one she had a copy of, and  that  the
owner  never  returned a copy of the only other  lease  she  ever
signed,  which  contained no date or rental amount.   The  tenant
also  stated  that  the owner never tendered any  other  "proper"
leases to her for the subject-premises.

In   Order  No.  CL  110286-R,  issued  on  June  6,  1991,   the
Administrator  determined that the initial legal registered  rent
of  $390.55  had  been lawfully increased to  $456.37  per  month
through  July 31, 1988.  The order also declared the  termination
of  review  after July 31, 1988 because the tenant had failed  to
supply additional information regarding leases and rental payment
subsequent to that date.  Finally the order advised the tenant to
complete and to file the enclosed Form RA-90a to request DHCR  to
compel the owner to offer the tenant a renewal lease.

In her petition, dated July 5, 1991, the tenant contends that the
Administrator's  order  improperly allowed  rent  increases  even
though the owner had never offered any "proper" renewal leases to
the tenant.

The  owner's  answer contends that the tenant's petition  has  no
basis because valid lease copies were sent to the DHCR, and  that
the tenant even has copies of them.

The  Commissioner  is  of the opinion that the  tenants  petition
should be denied.

The  tenant's  complaint of rent overcharge, which was  filed  on
November 12, 1988, was based on the fact that there have been  no
lease  agreements  between the owner and  the  tenant  since  the
expiration of the tenant's vacancy lease in February  1982.   The
Commissioner  notes that under Section 2523.5(c) of  the  current
Rent Stabilization Code, effective May 1, 1987 (and Section 60 of
the former Code), the owner is required to make a timely offer of
a renewal lease to the tenant, for which the failure to make such
offer subjects the owner to penalty.  However, the complaint does
not  claim  that the owner ever failed to do this  nor  does  the
tenant  make  this allegation anywhere else in the  record.   The
statement that the owner failed to tender "proper" renewal leases
is vague and evasive in that it does not claim that the owner

failed  to tender any leases at all.  Significantly, the  owner's
claim  that lease renewals actually were signed by the tenant  is
never  denied.   Finally, it is significant that the  tenant  had
never  commenced  an action to request that the DHCR  compel  the
owner  to  make  such offer of a renewal lease before  filing  an
overcharge  complaint.  The Administrator therefore appropriately
determined  to  apply  the DHCR's policy of  deemed  leases,  and
assessed  the  rent history for overcharges as  based  purely  on
compliance  with  the  guidelines or other  Code  provisions,  as
required,  as  if  the tenant and owner had  mutually  agreed  to
forego a formal written lease.

The  record  further  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  regis-tration  statement to the  tenant,  no  subsequent
challenge  may be entertained.  Insofar as the complaint  alleged
no defect in the initial registration, the Administrator properly
limited  review of the lease history to the period subsequent  to

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.

Finally,  it  is  noted  that, as stated in  the  Administrator's
order,  the  tenant may file a complaint to compel the  owner  to
offer  a renewal lease, should the owner fail to comply with  the
requirements of Section 2523.5 of the Code.

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.


                                         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