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. FC410445RT
: DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
DOCKET NO. ZCK410192RV
Arnold and Fabianne Gershon,
OWNER: Gerald Turelzky [agent
for Clifford Rich and
Eva Weininger as Trust-
ees under Will of Rose
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 29, 1991 the above-named petitioner-tenants filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order issued on March 1, 1991 by a
Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York
concerning the housing accommodations known as 1070 Madison Avenue
(a/k/a 26 East 81st Street), New York, New York, Apartment No. 8S
wherein the Rent Administrator terminated the lease renewal proceeding.
This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing in November, 1988
of a complaint by the tenants, in which they stated that they had
commenced occupancy on January 1, 1986 at a rent of $34.00 [actually
$3,400.00] per month, and that the owner had refused to return a copy of
a renewal lease.
In answer, the owner contended that the tenants had been given a copy of
their renewal lease, and were basically just reasserting a complaint of
overcharge that was already pending under other docket numbers. The
owner submitted a copy of a fully executed renewal lease commencing
January 1, 1989.
In an order issued on March 1, 1991 the Administrator terminated the
proceeding both because the parties had entered into a valid renewal
lease and because the tenants had failed to respond to two notices.
In this petition, the tenants contend in substance that the DHCR never
sent them any of the owners' submissions, and that the DHCR ignored
their own submissions. They also argue the lawfulness of their rent.
In a supplement they state among other things that "[w]hile a lease was
eventually proferred and signed under protest by the tenant, the rent
reserved in that lease was inappropriate."
The owner submitted a copy of a fully-executed renewal lease commencing
January 1, 1991.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
The tenants' complaint concerned a failure to receive copy of a renewal
lease. Even considering all of the tenants' submissions in this appeal
proceeding as if they had been made in the proceeding before the
Administrator, the Administrator's order was warranted, since the owner
submitted a copy of the fully executed renewal lease. While the
tenants' contentions regarding the lawfulness of the rent in the lease
are not particularly relevant to the lease renewal proceeding, the
Commissioner notes that similar contentions are being dealt with in
detail in Docket Nos. HA410055RO and HA410079RT, which are the parties'
appeals of the order in Docket No. CC410386R concerning the tenants'
overcharge complaint/fair market rent appeal. In this connection the
Commissioner notes that that neither the Administrator's order under
appeal herein nor the present order are making any determination as to
the proper rent for the renewal lease.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and that
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA