154 A.D.2d 835 (1989)
When a statute or regulation mandates service of a notice by certified mail to trigger a time limit for response, the time limit does not begin to run unless the notice is properly served via certified mail.
Summary
The petitioner, an apartment owner, served a DC-2 notice on the first rent-stabilized tenant by regular mail, informing the tenant of the right to file a Fair Market Rent Appeal. The tenant filed an appeal, which the owner challenged as untimely, arguing the appeal should have been filed within 90 days of receipt of the notice. The New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) rejected the owner’s argument because the notice was not served by certified mail, as required by the Rent Stabilization Code. The court affirmed the DHCR’s decision, holding that the 90-day limitation period did not begin to run because the owner failed to serve the notice by certified mail. The court deferred to the DHCR’s interpretation of the code, finding it neither unreasonable nor irrational.
Facts
The petitioner owned a previously rent-controlled apartment.
The petitioner served a DC-2 notice on the first rent-stabilized tenant by regular mail, informing the tenant of the right to file a Fair Market Rent Appeal.
The tenant subsequently filed a Fair Market Rent Appeal.
The petitioner challenged the appeal as untimely, arguing it was filed more than 90 days after the tenant received the DC-2 notice.
Procedural History
The DHCR rejected the petitioner’s challenge to the timeliness of the tenant’s appeal.
The Appellate Division affirmed the DHCR’s decision.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the 90-day limitation period for filing a Fair Market Rent Appeal begins to run when the DC-2 notice is served by regular mail, rather than by certified mail as required by the Rent Stabilization Code.
Holding
No, because Section 26(A) of the former Code explicitly requires the DC-2 notice to be served “by certified mail” to the first rent-stabilized tenant. Since the owner did not comply with this requirement, the 90-day limitations period was not triggered.
Court’s Reasoning
The court relied on the specific language of Section 26(A) of the former Rent Stabilization Code, which states that the owner “shall” serve the DC-2 notice upon the first rent-stabilized tenant in occupancy “by certified mail.” The court also noted that Section 25(B) requires the tenant to file its Fair Market Rent Appeal “within ninety (90) days after [it] receives the [DC-2 notice] as required by Section 26 (A).” The DHCR interpreted these provisions to mean that the 90-day limitation period only begins to run when the owner serves the DC-2 notice by certified mail.
The court deferred to the DHCR’s interpretation, stating, “Inasmuch as this interpretation is neither unreasonable nor irrational, there is no basis for disturbing it (see, Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784, 791).” This reflects the principle that courts generally defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulations.
The court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the certified mail requirement to ensure proper notice to the tenant and a clear starting point for the limitation period.