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.:
EDWARD KESSELL, DISTRICT RENT
PETITIONER DF 410403-R
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
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
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.