DHCR Decisions                                 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.: BA 410194-RO                                         :                                              DRO DOCKET NO.: L 3116335-RT     JEMROCK REALTY CO.,   PETITIONER    :     ------------------------------------X                                       ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW     On  January  14,  1987  the  above-named  owner  filed  a   Petition   for     Administrative Review of an order issued on December 12, 1986, by the Rent     Administrator at 10 Columbus Circle, New  York,  New  York  pertaining  to     housing accommodations known as Apartment 11-F of 210 West  101st  Street,     New York, New York.     The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record pertaining to     the issue raised in the appeal, and has carefully considered same.     This proceeding was commenced on April  30,  1984,  when  Bruce  Schachter     filed with  the  Division  of  Housing  and  Community  Renewal  ("DHCR"),     complaints alleging, inter alia, that his landlord, petitioner herein, had     been and was collecting as rent, more than the legal, stabilized amount.     In Order  Number  28,359,  the  Administrator  ruled  that  the  rent  was     excessive, ordering that it be lowered and previous overpayments refunded.     Petitioner appeals that order on the following ground.  In March  of  1986     the parties' settlement stipulation, adopted as an order by a judge of the     Civil Court, "granted tenant a rent abatement of $3,521.36, more than  the     alleged overcharge herein.  Therefore the tenant never  paid  the  alleged     overcharge as set forth in the . . .  Administrator's  Order.   Petitioner     adds that it is entitled to a full credit for any  abatement  it  gave  to     tenant, "hereby reducing its liability to refund any excess  collected  to     zero".     The tenant claims that the stipulation settled a  dispute  concerning  the     need for repairs in the apartment.     Petitioner's assertions have no basis in the record.  The tenant  supplied     the stipulation in response to the petition.  The stipulation says nothing     about a settlement of the tenant's overcharge complaint  nor  about  "rent     abatement", and it makes no reference to the landlord paying or  crediting     the tenant with a particular sum.  There is no  way  to  derive  from  the     stipulation the meaning assigned by petitioner.           DOCKET NUMBER: BA 410194-RO     The  terms  of  the  stipulation  support  the  tenant's  claim  that  the     stipulation had no bearing on the overcharge complaint.  Paragraph     2 states that the tenant shall pay $2000 to the  owner  "representing  the     balance of rent due to the petitioner (owner) through and including  March     31, 1986."  Paragraph 3 notes that owner shall make several repairs in the     apartment.     The overcharge figure, then, is not affected by the cited stipulation.  As     the owner assigns no other error to the Rent  Administrator's  order,  the     latter must be affirmed.     THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied.     ISSUED:                                                                                                             ELLIOT SANDER                                         Deputy Commissioner