ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI430218RO

                                 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.: FI430218RO

           DAVID EISENSTEIN                       DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: FA420079BO
                                                       (DK426592BR)
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               The above-named owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 131 East 93rd Street, apts. 3B, 6B, 6D, New 
          York, N.Y.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record 
          and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to 
          the issues raised by the petition.

               The issue before the Commissioner is whether the 
          Administrator's order was correct.

               The Administrator's order being appealed, FA420079BO was 
          issued on September 6, 1991.  In that order, the Administrator 
          affirmed the finding of DK426592BR, issued December 19, 1990, that 
          the owner be denied eligibility for a 1990/91 Maximum Base Rent 
          (MBR) increase, due to the owner's failure to timely pay the MBR 
          fee.  In his Challenge to DK426592BR the owner claimed that he had 
          sent a check representing the MBR fee to the DHCR on December 27, 
          1989 and that this check had apparently been "lost in the mail."  
          At Challenge the owner submitted a "replacement" check.  The 
          Administrator in Order # FA420079BO ruled that,as it had been 
          submitted after the order denying eligibility was issued, the 
          Administrator could not accept the replacement check.

               On appeal, the owner reiterates his arguments made at 
          Challenge concerning the "two" fee payment checks he submitted to 
          the DHCR.  
















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI430218RO

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should 
          be denied.

               According to the owner's testimony both at Challenge and on 
          appeal, the "missing" check bore the # 1011.  As stated above, the 
          owner at Challenge submitted a "replacement" check, which was 
          returned by the Administrator to the owner.  This check, a copy of 
          which is attached to the Challenge bears the check # 1154 and is 
          dated "January 9, 1991".  The Commissioner notes that the 
          Administrator's order denying eligibility to the owner, DK426592BR 
          was issued on December 14, 1990.

               The Commissioner is therefore of the opinion that, as check # 
          1154 was drawn after the issuance of the Administrator's order 
          denying eligibility, the Administrator was correct in refusing to 
          consider check # 1154 in its decision.

               The Commissioner notes that, besides his statements on appeal 
          and at Challenge below the owner has not presented any evidence in 
          support of his contention that check # 1011 was timely submitted to 
          the DHCR in payment of the MBR fees at the subject premises.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, it is

               ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and 
          the same hereby is, denied, and that the order of the Rent 
          Administrator 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