FK 410423 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 S.J.R. 6299
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: FK 410423 RT
JOHN A. ELLEDGE,
DRO DOCKET NO.: DC 410084 R
PETITIONER OWNER: RACHEL TRASOFF
----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On November 18, 1991, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
October 16, 1991 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall
Street, Jamaica, New York concerning the housing accommodation
known as 8 West 87th Street, Apartment A, New York, New York,
wherein the Rent Administrator terminated the tenant's overcharge
proceeding.
Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed a petition in the Supreme
Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
requesting that the "deemed denial" of his administrative appeal be
annulled.
The proceeding was then remitted to the Division for an expeditious
determination of the petitioner's appeal.
In the order appealed from the Administrator determined that the
subject apartment is subject to the Rent Stabilization Law and that
the owner had effectuated proper registration, and that no rent
overcharge had occurred. No finding was made as to the control
status of the subject apartment.
In the petition, the tenant asserts that he was never served with
the apartment registration. Had he been so served, the tenant
contends he would have objected both to the rent amount and to the
stabilized status enunciated by the owner. The tenant asserts that
since he has resided in the subject apartment since 1967, he is a
rent controlled tenant and not subject to rents established
pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law.
This proceeding was initiated by the tenant filing a rent
overcharge complaint in which he stated tht he had resided in the
FK 410423 RT
subject apartment since 1967 and believed that the subject
apartment was rent controlled. In response the owner stated in
substance that the tenant may have lived in the apartment in the
1960's but vacated and did not move back until the mid 1970's. The
owner submitted pages of relevant telephone books in support of its
contention. The tenant submitted an affidavit and statement from
witnesses in support of his contention that he was in continuous
occupancy of the subject apartment from 1967.
This appeal has been considered in conformity with the applicable
provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, but, in the
opinion of the Commissioner, the record is not adequate to form the
basis for a proper determination of the issues in this proceeding,
specifically, the record is insufficient to establish whether the
subject apartment is rent controlled.
The proceeding must therefore be remanded to the Rent Administrator
for further consideration of this issue including the holding of a
hearing, if necessary.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the Rent Control Law and Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted to
the extent of remanding this processing to the Rent Administrator
for further proceeding in accordance with this order and opinion.
ISSUED:
------------------------
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
