Docket Number: DD-210146-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  SJR 4222
        IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
        APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: DD 210146-RO
                                            :  
             PRESLER JEANTY,                   DRO DOCKET NO.: 051319       

                              PETITIONER    : 
        ------------------------------------X                           
          
           ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

        On May 17, 1989, the Commissioner issued an order dismissing for the 
        untimeliness a Petition for Administrative  Review  (PAR)  filed  on
        April 10, 1989 by the above named petitioner owner against an  order
        issued on January 25, 1989 by  the  Rent  Administrator  of  the  10
        Columbus  Circle  District  Rent  office,  concerning  the   housing
        accommodations known as 90 Greene Avenue,  Apartment  1R,  Brooklyn,
        New York 11238, wherein the Administrator, determined  the  tenant's
        objection to the  1984  rent  registration,  found  overcharges  and
        ordered a refund.

        Subsequent thereto, the owner filed a petition in the Supreme  Court
        pursuant to  Article  78  of  the  Civil  Practice  Law  and  Rules,
        contending that the Commissioner improperly measured the thirty-five 
        (35) day limitation period for filing an administrative appeal (PAR) 
        from the date of issuance stamped on the Administrators  order.   In
        an order dated  October  2,  1990,  Justice  Lonchein  remitted  the
        proceedings to the Division for a redetermination as to whether  the
        Petition for Administrative Review was timely if measured  from  the
        date of receipt, and, if so, for further proceedings.

        In light of the petitioner's statement that it  did  not  receive  a
        copy of the owner's copy of the January 25, 1989, and had not become 
        aware of the order until the tenant provided a copy until March  16,
        1989,  Justice   Lonchein's  directive  to  measure  the  applicable
        limitation from the date on  which  the  owner  received  the  order
        compels the Commissioner to deem the administrative  appeal  timely;
        i.e. if the owner did not receive the order, the  limitation  period
        could not have begun to run.  Accordingly, the Commissioner's  order
        dismissing the owner's PAR is revoked.

        The tenant commenced these proceedings  on  September  24,  1984  by
        filing an objection to the owner's initial  1984  rent  registration
        claiming that the April 1, 1984 rent was not the legal rent and that 
        there was an overcharge.

        The owner responded on July 1, 1986 that the  tenant  had  not  been
        overcharged, and that the apartment had been completely renovated.







          Docket Number: DD-210146-RO
        In response to a request dated January 21, 1987 for documentation to 
        substantiate the base date rent for the subject apartment, the owner 
        by a letter dated February 16, 1987, advised that  the  tenant  took
        possession on January 1, 1983 pursuant to one year lease.  The owner 
        indicated that the apartment was completely renovated and that there 
        had been installed a new bathroom, stove, sink,  refrigerator,  wall
        cabinet, floor and ceiling.

        The owner's letter also stated that the owner  had  previously  been
        notified by the  Division  that  the  tenant's  objection  had  been
        dismissed.  In fact, an order, issued on July 10, 1986, under Docket 
        Number 030183, dismissing the tenant's objection  to  the  apartment
        registration, on the grounds that the  objection  was  received  122
        days after receipt of the registration; the law  required  that  the
        objection be filed  within  (90)  days  after  the  receipt  of  the
        registration.  An examination of the records further  revealed  that
        the Administrator  had  established  duplicate  case  dockets  under
        Docket Number 030183 and Docket Number  051319.   The  records  also
        reveals that although the tenant did not seek Administrative  Review
        of the Administrator's order dismissing the tenant's objection under 
        Docket Number 030183.  Case  Docket  Number  051319,  which  is  the
        subject matter  of  this  appeal,  remained  open,  pending  further
        processing.

        On October 14, 1989,  the  Administrator,  in  connection  with  the
        proceedings under Docket  Number  051319,  requested  the  owner  to
        submit a copy of the dismissal order.  By a separate notice of  same
        date, the  owner was again requested to substantiate the  base  date
        rent and to submit proof, in the form of  bills,  cancelled  checks,
        etc., to substantiate the cost of any improvements that would affect 
        the rent.  There is no record that the  owner  responded  to  either
        request.

        On January 25, 1989 the Administrator issued the order herein  under
        appeal.  Based on a finding that owner could not submit  the  leases
        from April 1, 1980, the Administrator computed the legal  stabilized
        rent to be $400.87, effective January 1, 1983, by using the  average
        stabilized rent, determined that  the  owner  collected  overcharges
        commencing January 1, 1983,  and  ordered  a  refund  of  $21,688.46
        including treble damages.

        In the petition, the owner reiterates that  improvements  were  done
        while the apartment was vacant, and that the tenant  was  the  first
        person renting the apartment  since  the  renovation.   In  a  cover
        letter submitted with the  PAR,  the  petitioner  also  denies  even
        receiving a notice of the proceedings below, which is the subject of 
        this appeal, and requests an opportunity to provide documentation to 
        establish that the tenant was not overcharged.

        After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
        the petition should be granted.

        As previously noted, the Administrator failed  to  take  note  of  a
        previous order under Docket Number 30183 dismissing the tenant's 






          Docket Number: DD-210146-RO
        objection for failure to file the objection  within  90  days  after
        receipt of registration.  

        Although not raised as an issue in the owner's appeal, the  tenant's
        objection below, under Docket Number  051319,  dated  September  24,
        1984, herein under review, was also untimely, as the  tenant  stated
        therein that the owner hand delivered the apartment registration  to
        the tenant on June  1,  1984,  i.e.,  115  days  prior  to  tenant's
        objection.

        In light of the Administrator's pre-existing final order  dismissing
        the objection under Docket Number 030183 for failure to file  within
        90 days after the receipt for the registration, the  Administrator's
        disregard of said order, and the shift of the burden of proof to the 
        owner to establish the dismissal, the Commissioner  finds  that  the
        Administrator's   overcharge    determination    was    unwarranted.
        Accordingly the Administrator's  determination  is  revoked  in  its
        entirety, and the tenant's objection is dismissed  as  untimely,  in
        accordance with the prior order under Docket Number 030138.

        In any arrears are owed to the owner by the tenant as  a  result  of
        this  order,  the  tenant  may  pay  such  areas  in  equal  monthly
        installments over the course of the next twenty-four (24) months.  

        THEREFORE, in accordance with the Chapter 403 of the Law of 1983, as 
        amended by Chapter 102 of the Laws of 1984, it is

        ORDERED, that  this  petition  for  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
        affirmed, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
        revoked.

        ISSUED:




                                                                      
                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        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