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. GG 110028 RO
: DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
Maya Realty Associates, DOCKET NO. EK 110089-RV
TENANT: Bernard Mazlish
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
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
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA