FD410129.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. FD410129RT
Melvyn L. Meer, : DRO DOCKET NO.ZDB410004RV
FORMER OWNER: Pearce,
Urstadt, Mayer & Greer
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 4, 1991 the above named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order issued on March 8, 1991
by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New
York concerning housing accommodations known as Apartment 17H at
201 East 19th Street, New York, New York wherein the Rent
Administrator terminated the tenant's complaint that the former
owner had failed to offer a proper renewal lease.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Rent Administrator's order
was warranted.
This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing in February,
1989 of a complaint by the tenant that the (former) owner had
offered a renewal lease which did not reflect a rent reduction
order in Docket No. L3114599-R, issued on February 1, 1988.
On February 7, 1991 the tenant was sent a form asking whether the
complaint had been resolved to his satisfaction so that he wished
to withdraw his complaint, or whether his complaint had not been
resolved. He indicated the former, so an order was issued on March
8, 1991 terminating the proceeding. (For some reason a Final
Request for Information asking the same thing was mailed to him on
April 3, 1991, after the order was issued and on the same day that
he mailed his appeal to the DHCR. The tenant indicated on the form
that his complaint had not been resolved.)
FD410129.RT
In this petition the tenant contends in substance that he
inadvertently checked the wrong response on the form sent to him on
February 7, 1991; that his complaint has not been resolved as
nothing has been done regarding his lease renewal, and that the
proceeding should be restored.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
denied.
Aside from the fact that the Administrator's order was correct on
the basis of the record in existence when it was issued, the
Commissioner notes that an order was issued on July 2, 1993 in
Docket No.GL410109RT, finding no overcharge through February 28,
1989 by upholding an order which had overtirned the order that the
tenant used as a basis for refusing to sign the proferred renewal
lease. While the tenant may end up challenging that recent order
in court, such proceeding could determine the rent upon which the
renewal offer should be based. There would in any event be no
reason for this order to direct the owner to offer a lease based on
any rent other than that upheld in Docket No.GL410109-RT, and the
owner has already made such an offer, which the tenant refused to
sign.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
