HA510057RO
                             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. HA510057RO

          Memed Dzeloski                  :  DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                             DOCKET NO. ED510232R
                                            
                                             TENANT: Luis Deno           
                            PETITIONER    : 
      ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

      On January 21, 1993, the above-referenced owner filed a Petition for 
      Administrative Review against an order of a Rent Administrator issued on 
      January 8, 1993, concerning the housing accommodations known as 
      apartment 5E at 736 Riverside Drive in New York City, wherein the Rent 
      Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the tenant.

      Specific determinations in that order include:  that the owner had 
      failed to prove proper initial registration of the subject 
      accommodations;  that the tenant had commenced occupancy on January 1, 
      1990 at a monthly rental of $474.52;  that the lawful rent at that time 
      was $344.44;  that the latter rental could not and cannot be raised 
      until after the owner has properly registered the apartment;  that the 
      rent was raised to $507.97 on April 1, 1991;  and that because the 
      overcharge was willful, it must be trebled as damages payable to the 
      tenant.

      The petition against that order merely refers the Commissioner to 
      "stipulations" (actually a photocopy of a single two-page stipulation) 
      attached thereto.  Dated April 5, 1991, that document states that the 
      tenant and "736 Riverside Drive Corp.," as parties in a Civil Court 
      action, agree inter alia (a) "that the total rent due for the period 
      September 1990--March 1991 is $474.52 [times] 7," which the tenant 
      hereby pays "in open court" and (b) that the "[r]ent may be adjusted if 
      DHCR sets the rent at some amount other than $474.52."

      Also attached to the petition is a letter from the owner's counsel 
      denying the tenant's claim (made before the Administrator) that he had 
      been paying $763 per month in rent.

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

      Neither the stipulation nor counsel's letter attack anything in the 
      Administrator's order, which will therefore be affirmed.

      The failure to properly and timely comply with rent-registration 
      requirements bars an owner from collecting any rent in excess of the 
      legal regulated rent on April 1 of the year for which registration was 
      required to be filed.  The late filing of a registration results in the 
      prospective elimination of the penalty.  If the owner has not filed with 
      the DHCR and served the tenant all required registration statements, the 







          HA510057RO


      collectible rent is set at $344.44 until such time as they are filed and 
      served.

      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 
      increases.
           
      The Commissioner has determined in this Order and Opinion that the owner 
      collected overcharges of $16,155.99.  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 this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and that 
      the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby is, 
      affirmed.


      ISSUED:



                                                                    
                                      JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Deputy Commissioner