DOCKET NO.  AI 410208-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
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                           :   DOCKET NO.  AI 410208-RO
                                              :
                    JACK MINC,                :   DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTATOR'S
                                              :   DOCKET NO. CDR-21,581
                                  PETITIONER  :   
          ------------------------------------X


            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                       IN PART


          On September 29, 1986, the above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review  against  an  order  issued  on
          September 3, 1986 by the Rent Administrator, 10  Columbus  Circle,
          New York, New York concerning the housing accommodation  known  as
          Apartment 1, 411 East 91st Street, New York, New York wherein  the
          Rent  Administrator  determined  that  the  rent   being   charged
          exceeded the legal stabilization rent and directed  the  owner  to
          roll back the rent  and  to  refund  $10,061.19  representing  the
          total amount of the  overcharge,  including  interest  and  excess
          security.

          The Commissioner notes that this proceeding  was  initiated  prior
          to April 1, 1984.  Sections 2526.1(a) (4)  and  2521.1(d)  of  the
          Rent Stabilization Code (effective May  1,  1987)  governing  rent
          overcharge  and  fair  market  rent   proceedings   provide   that
          determination of these matters be  based  upon  the  law  or  code
          provisions  in  effect  on  March  31,  1984.   Therefore,  unless
          otherwise  indicated,  reference   to   sections   of   the   Rent
          Stabilization Code (Code) contained herein  are  to  the  Code  in
          effect on April 30, 1987.
           
          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the  record  and
          has carefully considered that portion of the  record  relevant  to
          the issues raised by the administrative appeal.







          The proceeding was originally commenced on  October  29,  1981  by
          the filing of a rent overcharge  complaint  with  the  former  New
          York City Conciliation and  Appeals  Board  (CAB)  by  the  tenant
          (Daniel Brooks) who had taken occupancy of the subject apartment
          pursuant to a one-year lease  commencing  February  11,  1981  and
          terminating February 11, 1982 at a monthly rent of  $352.54.   The
          petitioner  purchased  the  subject  building  in  January   1982.






          DOCKET NO.  AI 410208-RO
          Brooks continued to  occupy  the  subject  apartment  until  April
          1982.  In May 1982, Jill Brooks and Susan  McCarn  took  occupancy
          pursuant to an alleged  "sublease"  commencing  May  1,  1982  and
          expiring July 30, 1982 at a monthly  rent  of  $408.95.   Although
          the tenant had requested, in writing,  permission  to  sublet  the
          premises, the owner did not respond to the request.

          The "subtenancy" continued  under  the  terms  of  the  "sublease"
          until December 1982 when the  owner  tendered  in  Susan  McCarn's
          name only a one-year renewal lease backdated  to  commence  August
          1, 1982 and expiring August 1, 1983 at a monthly rent of  $510.75.
          On February 2, 1983 the tenants (Burton and McCarn) filed  a  rent
          overcharge complaint with the CAB.  Subsequently,  the  petitioner
          initiated  summary  proceedings  against  Burton  as  an   illegal
          subtenant.  Because both  overcharge  complaints  involved  common
          issues of law and fact they  were  combined  for  the  purpose  of
          making a determination of the overcharge complaint.

          The prior owner, the petitioner-owner and the current  owner  each
          were served with a copy of the complaint  and  were  requested  to
          submit rent records to prove the  lawfulness  of  the  rent  being
          charged.

          In response, the petitioner alleged that the  complaint  had  been
          settled and submitted a copy of a  so-ordered  court  stipulation.
          The stipulation, which is signed by  the  tenant  (Burton),  three
          additional  tenants  of  the  subject  building,  the  owner,  the
          owner's  attorney,  and  so  ordered  by  the  Honorable   Antonio
          Brandveen states in part:  "It is  hereby  stipulated  and  agreed
          upon by both parties as follows:

               1.   Rent for the above-named tenants  at  411  East
                    9th  Street  will  be  set  at   $350.00/month,
                    retroactive to January 1, 1983."

          To date, the petitioner has failed to provide a rental history  of
          the subject accommodation.






          In Order Number CDR  21,581,  based  on  the  owner's  failure  to
          submit  a  complete  rental  history,   the   Rent   Administrator
          established the legal stabilized rent, directed the owner to  roll
          back  the  rent  and  further  directed  a  refund  of  $10,061.19
          representing the total overcharge, including interest  and  excess
          security.

          In the appeal, as initially filed, the petitioner states that  the
          subject property was sold to 411 East  9th  Street  Associates  in
          November  1983  and  requests  that  the  overcharge   refund   be
          allocated by  tenancy  and  that  the  petitioner's  liability  be
          limited to the Brooks tenancy for the period January to 
          April 1982.  The petitioner  contends  that  Burton  withdrew  the
          overcharge  claim  both  by  letter   and   a   so-ordered   court
          stipulation which has  never  been  modified  or  rescinded.   The
          petitioner asserts, therefore, that the only viable  complaint  is






          DOCKET NO.  AI 410208-RO
          Brooks complaint which is limited to Brooks' actual  occupancy  of
          the  subject  accommodation  ending  April  1982.   Moreover,  the
          petitioner continues, if Burton took over Brooks'  complaint  then
          that complaint also would be withdrawn pursuant to the  so-ordered
          stipulation.

          In response to the petition, the tenant (Burton)  contends,  among
          other things, that the prior tenant (Brooks)  never  withdrew  his
          complaint;  that  she  was  never  authorized  to  withdraw   said
          complaint; that she signed the stipulation under duress  (that  of
          eviction), knowing, as did  all  the  parties,  that  the  Brooks'
          complaint was still  pending;  that  since  the  current  rent  is
          derived from Brooks' rent, she is entitled to  a  rent  reduction;
          and for all of the foregoing reasons,  the  Administrator's  order
          should be upheld.

          In  reply,  the  petitioner  asserts  two  points  which   mandate
          revocation  of  the  Administrator's   order:   one,   the   lease
          assignment from Brooks to Burton assigned  all  rights,  interests
          and claims pertinent to the lease  and  thereby  extinguished  any
          and all claims of the prior tenant;  and  two,  the  Administrator
          should have deferred to the so-ordered stipulation  by  which  the
          lawful rent was established in open court and the tenant  withdrew
          with prejudice her overcharge complaint.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that  the  petition  should  be
          granted in part.







          Based upon  a  review  of  the  entire  record,  the  Commissioner
          rejects the petitioner's contention that the tenant should be 
          held to the terms of the agreement entered into.   Section  11  of
          the former Code and Section 2520.13 of the  current  Code  provide
          that an agreement to waive the benefit of  any  provision  of  the
          Rent Stabilization Law or Code  should  be  void.   Under  Section
          2520.13 however, based upon a negotiated  settlement  between  the
          parties  and  with  the  approval  of   a   court   of   competent
          jurisdiction where a tenant is represented by counsel, a tenant
          may withdraw, with prejudice, any  complaint  pending  before  the
          Division of Housing and Community Renewal.  In this case, t e  so-
          ordered stipulation shows that neither the parties nor  the  judge
          calculated the rent from the base  date  in  accordance  with  the
          Rent Stabilization Law.  The record also  shows  that  the  tenant
          signed  the  stipulation  wherein  she  agreed  to  withdraw   her
          overcharge complaint without the advice of counsel.

          Therefore, the Commissioner finds  that  the  stipulation  entered
          into by the tenant does not bar the Division from determining  the
          merits of the tenant's complaint.

          With regard to the alleged assignment of a lease,  the  Commissioner
          notes that the parties herein have ignored the difference between an 
          assignment of a lease and a sublease, i.e. in the former, there is a 
          transfer of the whole of the assignor's interest in  the  lease,  in






          DOCKET NO.  AI 410208-RO
          the latter, the transferor retains  a  reversionary  interest.   The
          parties  use  the  terms  interchangeably.   The   owner   expressly
          disapproved of the subtenancy and characterizes  the  tenant  as  an
          illegal subtenant.  Both  the  tenant  and  the  prior  tenant  have
          disavowed any intention to have the overcharge complaint arising out 
          of the prior tenant's initial lease assigned to Burton.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner  finds  that  the  original  complaint
          filed by the prior tenant (Brooks) survived.

          Pursuant to Section 2526.1(f) of the current  Code,  for  complaints
          filed prior to April 1, 1984, the owner  will  be  held  responsible
          only for his or her portion of the overcharges  collected  prior  to
          April 1, 1984, in the  absence  of  collusion  or  any  relationship
          between the owner and any prior owners.  For  overcharges  collected
          on or after April 1, 1984, a  current  owner  shall  be  responsible
          regardless of the date the complaint was filed.   If  the  complaint
          was filed on or after April 1,  1984,  the  current  owner  will  be
          responsible for all overcharges, even those collected  before  April
          1, 1984.





          The Commissioner notes there is no  evidence  of  collusion  or  any
          relationship between the current and prior owners.  Accordingly, 
          since  the  complaint  was  filed  before   April   1,   1984,   the
          Commissioner finds that of  the  total  refund  owed  to  the  prior
          tenant  (Brooks)  $2,480.08  the  prior  owner  (Franklin  Mark)  is
          responsible  for  overcharges  collected  from  February  11,   1981
          through December 1981 or $1,881.44 and  the  petitioner-owner  (Jack
          Minc) is responsible for overcharges collected from January  through
          April 1982 or $598.64.  For overcharges to be refunded to
          the tenant (Burton), the petitioner-owner  is  responsible  for  the
          amounts collected through October 1983 or  $3,229.07.   The  current
          owner is responsible for the remaining  overcharges  collected  from
          November 1983 through December 1985 or $4,352.04.

          This order may, upon the expiration  of  the  period  in  which  the
          owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to  Article  Seventy-Eight
          of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and  enforced  by  the
          tenant in the same manner as a judgment or not in excess  of  twenty
          percent thereof per month may be offset against any rent  thereafter
          due the owner.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law  and  Code,
          it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,  granted  in
          part and that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and  the  same
          hereby is, modified as above set forth but is otherwise affirmed.


          ISSUED:









          DOCKET NO.  AI 410208-RO

                                                                          
                                             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