HJ110014-17RP, SJR 6951

                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEALS OF                             ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                                 DOCKET NO.HJ110014RP,
                                                 HJ110015RP, HJ110016RP
                                                 HJ110017RP (BD110146RO,
          SANTINO DI FIORE AND                   BD110379RO, BE110068RT
          KENNETH LONG,                          BD110123RT)

                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO.Q31220584R

                                PETITIONERS   : 

               On April 6 and 30, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner and 
          tenant filed  Petitions for Administrative Review against an order 
          issued on April 1, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus 
          Circle New York, New York, concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 30-70 48th Street, Long Island City, New York, Apartment 
          No. 2J, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner had 
          overcharged the tenant.

               The Commissioner issued an Order and Opinion on November 6, 
          1990 denying the owner's and granting the tenant's petitions and 
          terminating duplicate proceedings.

               Subsequently, the owner requested reopening of the proceeding 
          and reconsideration of the November 6, 1990 order.  By order issued 
          June 21, 1991, an Order was issued granting the owner's request for 
          reconsideration and reopening the proceeding based on a finding that 
          the failure to send the November 6, 1990 order to the 1990 
          registered address for the owner constituted an irregularity in a 
          vital matter.  The reopening was for the purpose of serving the 
          order on the owner at the last registered address and to reconsider 
          the original petition for administrative review based upon rent 
          ledgers which the owner claims he did not have before.  On August 
          21, 1991, the Commissioner issued an Order and Opinion reissuing the 
          Order and Opinion issued on November 6, 1990 but serving the owner 
          at its last registered address.

               Subsequent thereto, the petitioner-owner filed a petition in 
          the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law 
          and Rules alleging in substance that he was not served with the 
          order granting reconsideration or the August 21, 1991 PAR order.  It 

          HJ110014-17RP, SJR 6951

          appears that said orders were mailed to the owner at P.O. Box 2505 
          rather than the correct P.O. Box 5205.  The proceeding was then 
          remitted to the DHCR for further consideration.

               After a careful consideration of the evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that aside from serving the owner at 
          his last registered address - 20-64 31 Street, Apt. A6, Long Island 
          City, New York, 11105, and also at his P.O. Box 5205, Long Island 
          City, New York, 11105, and at his attorney's address, the November 
          6, 1990 order should be reissued without any modifications.

               The owner had ample opportunity to submit the rent ledgers 
          referred to by him in his reopening request.  The tenant's 
          overcharge complaint was filed in March 1984 and during the three 
          years that it was pending before the Administrator, the owner failed 
          to submit complete rent records despite repeated requests to do so.  
          The owner did submit leases with his petition with the exception of 
          the complaining tenant's vacancy lease and the prior tenant's last 
          lease and during the three years that the petition was pending, the 
          owner did not refer to the missing rent ledgers that he now wants 

               Pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code, the 
          scope of review in administrative appeals is limited to facts or 
          evidence before the Rent Administrator unless it is established that 
          certain facts or evidence could not reasonable have been included in 
          the proceeding prior to the issuance of the order being appealed.  
          In this case, not only did the owner not submit the rent ledgers to 
          the Administrator, he did not submit them to the Commissioner while 
          the petition was pending, but only submitted them with the request 
          for reconsideration and has offered no explanation as to why they 
          were not available before.

               It is also well settled that there must be finality in 
          administrative proceedings and once a final determination is made by 
          the Commissioner, it cannot be modified or revoked unless it was the 
          result of illegality, irregularity in a vital matter or fraud.  As 
          the reopening order noted, the only irregularity in this proceeding 
          was the failure to serve the owner with a copy of the order at the 
          address last registered with the Division.  The order is being 
          reissued solely to correct that defect, but is otherwise unchanged.

               The owner is directed to reflect the findings and 
          determinations made in this order on all future registration 
          statements, including those for the current year if not already 
          filed, citing this order as the basis for the change.  Registration 
          statements already on file, however, should not be amended to 
          reflect the findings and determinations made in this order.  The 
          owner is further directed to adjust subsequent rents to an amount no 
          greater than that determined by this order plus any lawful 

          HJ110014-17RP, SJR 6951

               The Commissioner has determined in this Order and Opinion that 
          the owner collected overcharges of $12,113.86.  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 or not in excess of 
          twenty percent per month of the overcharge may be offset against any 
          rent thereafter due the owner.  Where the tenant credits the 
          overcharge, the tenant may add to the overcharge, or where the 
          tenant 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 Commissioner's order and opinion issued on 
          November 6, 1990 be, and the same hereby is, reissued.  Said 
          November 6, 1990 order is attached hereto. In addition, a copy of 
          the June 21, 1991 reopening order is also attached hereto.


                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Deputy Commissioner


          HJ110014-17RP, SJR 6951


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