FG 410078-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.:
                                        FG 410078-RT
       EDWARD KESSELL,                  DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                        NO.:
                        PETITIONER      DF 410403-R
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
                                
On  June 9, 1991, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a Peti-
tion for Administrative Review of an order issued on June 7, 1991
by  a  Rent Administrator concerning housing accommodations known
as  Apartment 22-H at 400 East 54th Street, New York,  New  York,
wherein the Administrator determined that the tenant had not been
overcharged.

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 petition for review.

This  proceeding was commenced by the filing of a rent overcharge
complaint  by  the tenant on June 28, 1989.  This  complaint  was
given  the  above docket number.  A second complaint,  which  was
given  Docket No. DH 410068-R, was filed on August 1,  1989,  but
this was eventually consolidated with the instant proceeding.

The  tenant  took  occupancy pursuant to a tree-year  lease  com-
mencing October 1, 1975, and expiring on September 30, 1978 at  a
monthly rent of $365.00.

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
request.   In its answer, the owner also stated that  the  tenant
failed to make a timely challenge to the initial registered  rent
in  1984  and  that the record will show that there has  been  no
overcharge.


In  Order  No. DF 410403-R, issued on June 7, 1991, the  District
Rent  Administrator determined that the initial legal  registered
rent  of  $533.03  had  been lawfully  increased  to  $690.29  in
accordance with the orders of the Rent Guidelines Board, and that
there were no overcharges of the tenant's rent.

In  his  petition,  dated June 7, 1991, the tenant  restates  his
challenge  to  the initial rent of $533.03 per month,  contending
that  a  2.2%  rent  increase under a tax abatement  program  was
discontinued as of the lease expiring September 30, 1981, but was
improperly extended into the next lease.

The  Commissioner  is of the opinion that the  tenant's  petition
should be denied.

Although the tenant challenges the initial legal registered  rent
of $533.03  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 entertained.  Insofar as the complaint  alleged
no   defect  in  this  initial  registration,  the  Administrator
properly  limited  review  of the lease  history  to  the  period
subsequent to it.

Furthermore, a review of the subsequent lease history establishes
that  all  rent  increases were in accordance  with  the  amounts
authorized under the guidelines.  None of the tenant's subsequent
leases  included  the  2.2% increase for buildings  given  a  tax
abatement under Section 421-A of the Real Property Tax Law.


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.


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