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
          APPEALS OF                               DOCKET NO.FE410028RO
                                              :              HI410145RT
               Rahda Thomas and                    DRO DOCKET NO. 
               Donald S. Rogosin                              ZAL410529R
                                                   SUBTENANT: Donald J.
                               PETITIONER     :               Rogosin
          ------------------------------------X

                ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PRIME TENANT'S PETITION FOR 
                  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND DISMISSING SUB-TENANT'S
                         PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
               
          On May 7, 1991, the above-named petitioner-prime tenant  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against (hereafter PAR) an order 
          issued on April 17, 1991 by the Rent Administrator,  92-31  Union
          Hall  Street,  Jamaica,  New   York,   concerning   the   housing
          accommodations known as 445 East 78th Street, Apartment  1C,  New
          York, New York, wherein the  prime  tenant  had  overcharged  the
          subtenant.

          On December 8, 1993 the subtenant submitted a  copy  of  his  PAR
          allegedly filed on September 28, 1993.

          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 in the administrative appeals.

          This proceeding was commenced  on  February  19,  1987  when  the
          subtenant filed a complaint of rent overcharge in which he stated 
          that he believed that the subject apartment had been sublet for the 
          purpose of circumventing the rent stabilization laws.

          In response to the complaint, the prime tenant submitted copies of 
          the prime lease and the subleases.  The  owner  of  the  building
          stated that the apartment was vacant when it purchased the building 
          in June 1984 and alleged that the large increase over the rent of 
          the prior tenant is justified by the extensive  renovations  made
          while the apartment was vacant.

          In the order here under review, the Administrator determined that 
          an overcharge had occurred and directed the prime tenant to refund 
          an overcharge of $3,373.36 including treble  damages  and  excess
          security.
                    















          FE410028RO, HI410145RT

          In the appeal, the prime tenant's request that the order be revoked 
          is based upon two contentions:  1)  the  Administrator  erred  in
          stating that the prime tenant had failed to submit  all  required
          documentation and 2) the subtenant was in fact charged  a  lawful
          sublet allowance.

          The subtenant contends  in  response  that  because  the  subject
          apartment was sublet unfurnished, the prime tenant was not entitled 
          to the 10% allowance permissible for fully furnished sublets.  The 
          subtenant contends also that the rent established as the prime rent 
          is questionable as it far exceeds the  prior  tenant's  rent  and
          further contends that the prime tenancy may be an illusory tenancy.

          In a letter dated September 28, 1993, the subtenant urges that his 
          appeal be accepted despite its having been untimely filed because 
          he did not receive a copy of the Administrator's order when it was 
          issued.  The subtenant contends that  he  was  unaware  that  the
          Administrator's order had been issued until he received on May 14, 
          1991 notice of the prime tenant's PAR with opportunity to respond 
          and that his response on June 14, 1991 in which he objected to the 
          calculation of the legal rent was evidence that he had acted timely 
          and properly to the order.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that the prime tenant's petition 
          should be denied and the subtenant's petition should be dismissed 
          as untimely.

          It is noted that the prime tenant did not  submit  the  requested
          material (proof of initial registration or a rental history  from
          April 1, 1984), however the non-submission played no part in  the
          Administrator's finding that an overcharge was collected and thus 
          the contention is not relevant to the prime tenant's appeal.

          Pursuant to Section 2525.6 of the Code, the rental charged to the 
          subtenant shall not exceed the legal regulated rent plus no  more
          than a ten percent surcharge payable to the tenant if the housing 
          accommodation is sublet fully furnished.  There is no evidence that 
          the apartment was fully furnished when it was sublet.  Accordingly, 
          the Administrator correctly denied the surcharge  in  determining
          that an overcharge had been collected.

          The time for filing a PAR is governed by Section 2529.2 of the Rent 
          Stabilization Code which provides inter alia that a PAR  must  be
          filed with the DHCR in person or by mail within thirty-five  days
          after the date such order is issued.  Pursuant  to  Code  Section
          2529.3, a PAR may be filed only on a form prescribed by the DHCR. 

          FE410028RO, HI410125RT









          The Rent Stabilization Code contains no provision for filing a PAR 
          beyond the thirty-five days referenced above.   The  Commissioner
          notes that the subtenant did not seek to file a PAR until more 
          than two years after the order's issuance and after he received a 
          copy of the order.  Further contrary to the subtenant's contention 
          DHCR records disclose that a copy of the Rent Administrator's order 
          was mailed to the subtenant at his correct address by DHCR on April 
          17, 1991.  Attached to such order was a copy of "Notice of Right to 
          Administrative Review" informing the subtenant of his right to file 
          a PAR.  Although the subtenant voiced his objection to the order in 
          response to the  prime  tenant's  PAR,  the  response  cannot  be
          considered a  duly  filed  PAR.   Accordingly,  the  Commissioner
          dismisses the subtenant's PAR as untimely.

          The subtenant's allegations with respect to a  possible  illusory
          tenancy and the prime rent cannot be considered herein because the 
          subtenant did not properly file his own appeal.

          Evidence in the record indicates that the subtenant is no longer in 
          occupancy of the subject apartment and that the prime tenant  has
          purchased the apartment.

          The Commissioner has determined in this Order and Opinion that the 
          prime tenant collected overcharges of $3373.36.  This Order  may,
          upon expiration of the period for seeking review of this Order and 
          Opinion pursuant to Article Seventy-eight of the Civil Practice Law 
          and Rules, be filed  and  enforced  as  a  judgment.   Where  the
          subtenant files this Order as a judgment, the County Clerk may add 
          to the overcharge, interest at the rate  payable  on  a  judgment
          pursuant to Section 5004 of the Civil Practice law and Rules from 
          the issuance date of the Rent Administrator's Order to the issuance 
          date of the Commissioner's Order.

          THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the   Rent
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED that the prime tenant's petition be, and the same  hereby
          is, denied, that the subtenant's petition be, and the same hereby 
          is, dismissed and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:
           
                                                        JOSEPH A.  D'AGOSTA
                                                        Deputy Commissioner 
                                        

                                  
                                                        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