STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
------------------------------------X S.J.R. No. 6707
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. FK210003RT
(refile of FE210400RT)
Elsa Paredes, DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
FNA Elsa Montanez, DOCKET NO. ZK002598R
PETITIONER Owner: Konstantino Ferousis
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING
On October 31, 1991 the above-named petitioner-tenant timely
refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order
issued on May 17, 1991 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall
Street, Jamaica, New York concerning the housing accommodations
known as 180 Borinquen Place aka 180 Grand Street Extension,
Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No. 5 wherein the Rent Administrator
terminated the tenant's complaint of rent overcharge without action
stating that the tenant had vacated the subject apartment.
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 the petitioner's
administrative appeal be annulled. This proceeding was then
remitted, by a Court order, to the Division for a determination of
the petitioner's appeal.
The administrative appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2526.1 of the Rent stabilization Code.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issue by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was originally commenced on June 14, 1985 by the
filing of a tenant's complaint of rent overcharge, alleging that
the increase in rent to $400.00 charged by the owner due to the
tenant transferring from apartment 2 to apartment 5 in June 1985
was excessive and that the prior rent was about $200.00.
The tenant's complaint was served on the owner.
In response, the owner stated in substance that the increase in
rent was due to $6,000.00 worth of renovations to the subject
apartment prior to the transfer. In addition, the tenant was now
aware of the reason for the increase and wished to withdraw the
The Rent Administrator attempted to confirm the owner's allegation
that the tenant had withdrawn the complaint. However, the notice
to the tenant was addressed to 180 Grant Street rather than the
correct address of 180 Grand Street Extension causing the post
office to return the mail "addressee unknown".
Subsequently due to the confusion between Grand Street Extension
and Grand Street, the subject address was changed to 180 Borinquen
Place. In addition, the tenant's surname reverted to her maiden
On May 17, 1991, the Rent Administrator terminated the tenant's
complaint stating that the tenant had vacated the subject
In the instant petition, the tenant stated in substance that the
proceeding should be reopened and a decision made as to the legal
rent; that she had not vacated but had reverted to the use of her
maiden name (Paredes) although her complaint was filed under her
married name (Montanez); that due to problems experienced by the
post office in delivering mail because 180 Grand Street Extension
was being confused with 180 Grand Street, the address known as 180
Grand Street Extension was changed to 180 Borinquen Place and
therefore she never received any notices sent by the Rent
In response, the owner stated in substance that they had never
received a copy of the complaint under the instant docket and that
the tenant's petition should be denied.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be
remanded for processing of the tenant's overcharge complaint on the
merits since the evidence of record clearly shows that the Rent
Administrator was mistaken in terminating the proceeding on the
basis that the tenant had vacated the subject apartment. The
owner's prior submissions may be considered in the remanded
proceeding and the tenant should be sent a copy of such submissions
and afforded a chance to respond. Both sides may also be given an
opportunity to submit any additional evidence.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is granted, to
the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator
for further processing in accordance with this Order and Opinion.
Joseph A. D'Agosta