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.:GC 230006-RO
MARGARET LENNARD DOCKET NO.:DK 210063-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND
MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On February 29, 1992 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on January 31, 1992 by the
Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York concerning
housing accommodations known as 557 Pacific Street, Brooklyn, New York,
Various Apartments, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's rent
The issue in this proceeding is whether the order of the Rent Administrator
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues
raised by the petition for Administrative Review.
The owner commenced this proceeding by initially filing with the Division on
November 9, 1989 a rent increase application based on pointing and
waterproofing of the subject premises which contains only rent stabilized
On January 31, 1992 the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review denying the application on grounds that the owner had failed to file
the application within two years from the completion of the installation, as
required by the Rent Stabilization Code. (Due to a clerical error, Section
2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations is cited as the basis thereof).
In this petition for Administrative Review the owner contends in substance:
(1) that she was unaware of the two year limitation for filing a
major capital improvement rent increase application.
(2) that her failure to file timely is a mere technicality which
should be overlooked and a determination made on its merits;
(3) that the tenants were not prejudiced by this failure
(4) that if her initial application was defective she should not
have been required to furnish additional information concerning
various details of the work performed.
DOCKET NUMBER: GC 230006-RO
In response to the owner's administrative appeal one tenant filed an answer
urging the denial thereof.
After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that this petition should be denied.
Section 2522.4(a)(8) of the Rent Stabilization Code precludes a rent
increase for a major capital improvement where the application is filed more
than two years after the completion of the installation.
In the instant application, initially filed on November 9, 1989, the owner
specified that the pointing and waterproofing was completed on June 5, 1987.
It is clear that the application was filed some five months beyond the
permissible period for filing a major capital improvement application
affecting rent stabilized apartments.
The owner of a rent regulated dwelling is charged with knowledge of the laws
and regulations governing said property and cannot, in advance of self
interest, claim ignorance thereof.
Although the Administrator failed to initially deny the application based on
its untimeliness, the owner did not demonstrate any prejudice by the delayed
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly denied
the application in accordance with the provisions of Section 2522.4(a)(8) of
the Rent Stabilization Code.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is denied; that the Rent
Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is modified by deleting
reference to Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations and
substituting therefor Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code; and
that is so modified said order be and the same hereby is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner