FC410445RT
                             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. 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    
                                                    Fernbach]
                            PETITIONER    : 
      ------------------------------------X                             

           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.








          FC410445RT

      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.



      ISSUED:



                                                                    
                                      JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      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