increase of 16% over her prior rent as opposed to a 2% renewal
increase if the landlord had accepted her renewal. It is
uncontroverted that the petitioner accepted the lease and that
the rent for the rst month of the new lease term has been
paid.
[1] The Court will rst address the respondent's claim that
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to petitioner's
failure to serve the agency. Respondent contends that the
petitioner was required to mail a copy of the eviction notice to
the DHCR, pursuant to ETPR § 2504.3 (c). The Emergency
Tenant Protection Regulations were recently amended. This
amendment repealed the former provision of section 2504.3 (c)
and dispensed with the landlord's obligation to le a copy of
the eviction notice with the DHCR. Thus, under the current
law, the petitioner is not required to le a copy of the eviction
notice with DHCR.
312 188 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 2d SERIES
The Court will now turn to the respondent's claim that the
landlord failed to serve the renewal notice by certied mail as
required by the ETPR. ETPR § 2503.5 (a) states that a
‘‘landlord shall notify the tenant in occupancy not more than
120 days and not less than 90 days prior to the end of the
tenant's lease term, by certied mail, of such termination of
the lease term and oer to renew the lease at the legal
regulated rent permitted for such renewal * * * and shall give
such tenant a period of 60 days from the date of mailing of
such notice to renew such lease.’’
[2] The petitioner contends that the renewal notice was
properly served, in that ETPR § 2508.1 (a) permits notices,
protests, orders and answers to be served personally or by
mail. Also, petitioner oered into evidence a DHCR order, dated
March 28, 1983, in Matter of Ardor Mgt. v Rosen which ruled