STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
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 :
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
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
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.