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