GG 110028-RO

                                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. GG 110028 RO

                                          :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
           Maya Realty Associates,           DOCKET NO. EK 110089-RV
                                            
                                             TENANT: Bernard Mazlish          
                
                            PETITIONER    : 
      ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


      On July 7, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for 
      Administrative Review against an order issued on June 5, 1992, by the 
      Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations known as      
      64-34 102nd Street, Rego Park, New York, Apartment No. 7AA, wherein the 
      owner was directed to send to the tenant an amended renewal lease and a 
      copy of the completed lease rider.

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

      This proceeding was commenced on November 19, 1990 by the filing of a 
      tenant's complaint of the owner's failure to renew a lease.  The 
      complaining tenant alleged among other things, that the renewal lease 
      sent to him by the owner was untimely.

      In its answer, the owner disputed that the lease renewal offer was 
      untimely.  The owner further stated, among other things, that the tenant 
      had returned the renewal lease form with additional notes and provisions 
      on it that were illegal.

      On January 28, 1992, and again on March 27, 1992, the owner was 
      requested by the Administrator to submit proof that it had offered the 
      tenant a timely renewal lease within the window period of 150-120 days 
      prior to the expiration of the most recent lease on November 30, 1992, 
      and also that it had served the tenant with a copy of the Rent 
      Stabilization Rider.

      In an order issued on June 5, 1992, under Docket Number EK-11089-RV, the 
      Rent Administrator determined that the owner's offer of a renewal lease 
      was improper in that it was received by the tenant on August 15, 1990, 
      which was not within the window period of 150-120 days prior to the 
      expiration of the most recent lease and that, in addition, the owner had 
      failed to respond to the DHCR in requests for information.  The owner 
      was therefore directed to provide the tenant within 20 days of issuance 
      of the order with an amended  renewal lease to extend from January 1, 
      1991 until December 31, 1993 and further directed the owner to send the 







          GG 110028-RO

      completed lease rider to the tenant by certified mail.

      In its petition, the owner reiterates its contention that the renewal 
      lease was mailed to the tenant on July 20, 1990, and submits a copy of 
      the document for re-examination. The owner further contends that the 
      lease was signed and returned by the tenant, but only after he made 
      several unauthorized handwritten changes and additions; that the owner 
      was advised by its attorney to reissue the lease to the tenant in its 
      original form, which it did on October 27, 1990, but that, as attested 
      to in an enclosed affidavit from the building superintendent, the tenant 
      refused to sign any receipt indicating the tenant's acceptance of the 
      lease.  In addition, the owner contends that the Rent Stabilization 
      Rider was attached to the lease.

      The tenant answers that the owner has submitted no evidence of the July 
      20, 1990 mailing of the lease, and that this was not in fact the case.  
      The tenant also states, inter alia, that he had made changes in the 
      lease to make it in compliance with the Rent Stabilization Guidelines.

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

      Section 2523.5(c) of the Rent Stabilization Code provides:

           "Where the owner fails to timely offer a renewal lease of 
           rental agreement in accordance with subdivision (a) of this 
           section, the one or two year lease term selected by the tenant 
           shall commence at the tenant's option, either (1) on the date 
           a renewal lease would have commenced had a timely offer been 
           made or (2) on the first rent payment date occurring no less 
           than 120 days after the date that the owner does offer the 
           lease to the tenant.  In either event, the effective date of 
           the increased rent under the renewal lease shall commence on 
           the first rent payment date occurring no less than 120 days 
           after such offer is made by the owner, and the guidelines rate 
           applicable shall be no greater than the rate in effect on the 
           commencement date of the lease for which a timely offer should 
           have been made."

      In the instant case, the tenant should have received a renewal lease 
      between July 4, 1990 and August 3, 1990, or between 150-120 days prior 
      to the expiration of his then current lease.  The tenant contends 
      however, that the lease was offered to him on August 15, 1990, and the 
      owner fails to submit convincing evidence to the contrary.  The 
      Administrator properly directed the owner to offer the tenant a renewal 
      lease, commencing effective January 1, 1991, which is the first rent 
      payment date occurring no less than the 120 days after the date of 
      offer, in accordance with Section 2523.5(c), cited above.  The order 
      also properly directed that the lease be for a two year period, which is 
      what the tenant had opted for originally.

      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 Administrator's order be and the same hereby is, affirmed.




          GG 110028-RO

      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