STATE OF NEW YORK
                           OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: BF 410298-RO
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: TC 051237-G
       CORINNE L. WILSON                                    CDR 30,376
                           PETITIONER    : 


     On June 23, 1987 the above named petitioner tenant filed  a  Petition  for
     Administrative Review against  an  order  of  the  Rent  Administrator  10
     Columbus Circle, New York, New  York  issued  June  1,  1987.   The  order
     concerned housing accommodations known as Apartment  4-O  located  at  139
     East 33rd Street, New York, New York.  The Administrator  determined  that
     petitioner had not been overcharged.

     The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a rent overcharge complaint 
     on March 4, 1981.  Petitioner alleged that she was residing in the subject 
     apartment pursuant to a two year renewal lease commencing October 1, 1980. 
     Subsequent to executing that lease the owner sent her a note containing  a
     90 day cancellation clause giving the owner the right to cancel the  lease
     after a cooperative conversion plan  filed  with  the  Attorney  General's
     office is declared effective.  Petitioner duly sent a rent payment  at  an
     amount less than her legal regulated rent of  $286.50  in  reliance  on  a
     section  of  the  rent  stabilization  law  prohibiting  collection  of  a
     guidelines rent increase where a lease contains the  90  day  cancellation
     clause and the offering plan has been accepted for filing by the  Attorney
     General's office.  The owner returned the payment with a  note  cancelling
     the 90 day clause.  Petitioners complaint alleged that the 90  day  clause
     effected a permanent rollback in her rent and  that  she  was  overcharged
     when the owner demanded the $286.50 per month according to the lease.  The 
     owner responded to the complaint by stating, due to an  amendment  to  the
     offering plan, the 90 day cancellation clause issue was moot.   The  owner
     further advised that the tenant had subsequently purchased  the  apartment
     and was never exposed to the 90 day clause.  Petitioner filed  a  response
     to the answer alleging that it was illegal for the  owner  to  attempt  to
     change a lease once it had been signed.

     The Administrator dismissed the complaint.  Petitioner was deemed  correct
     in that the attempt to insert the 90 day  clause  was  illegal  when  done
     subsequent to a renewal offer.  Since  the  tenant  was  residing  at  the
     apartment under a valid lease, she was required to pay the rent agreed  to
     in that lease i.e $286.50.  Accordingly, the Administrator found  that  no
     overcharge had occurred.


          DOCKET NUMBER: BF 410298-RO
     Petitioner  appeals  from  this  judgment  by  taking   issue   with   the
     Administrators characterization of the offering  plan  as  "non-eviction".
     According to petitioner the plan was an  eviction  plan  and  the  90  day
     clause was being used as a scare tactic to induce  her  to  buy  or  move.
     Petitioner reasons that, since the owner acted illegally and used  the  90
     day cancellation clause as a bargaining chip in  the  conversion  process,
     the Administrator's order should be reversed.   

     After a careful review of the evidence in  the  record,  the  Commissioner
     denies the petition.

     The Administrator was correct in characterizing the insertion  of  the  90
     day clause as illegal.  The Court of Appeals, in Matter of East 56th Plaza 
     v. CAB 56NY2d 544, 434 NE2d 1337, 449NYS2d 959 (NY 1982)  ruled  that  the
     attempt to insert a 90  day  cancellation  clause  into  a  renewal  lease
     already signed and executed by the tenant was illegal and void.  Once  the
     tenant signed the renewal offer which  contained  a  clause  stating  that
     receipt of  such  accepted  offer  by  the  owner  constituted  a  binding
     agreement between the parties, the owner could not subsequently modify the 
     terms of the offer by inserting an additional clause.  The  illegality  of
     the disputed clause, however, did not render  the  entire  lease  invalid.
     Rather the tenant was in occupancy pursuant to a binding renewal lease and 
     was required to pay the stated rent of  $286.50.  The  Commissioner  notes
     that the owner has not conceded that the offering plan was  an  "eviction"
     plan.  The owner,  o  the  contrary,  maintains  that  this  was  a  "non-
     eviction" situation.  Resolution of this issue is not  necessary  for  the
     purpose of adjudicating the tenant's petition and the parties can  readily
     determine this matter by  examining  the  plan  filed  with  the  Attorney
     General's office.  The Administrator's order must be affirmed.

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

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and hereby is, denied and that  the  order
     of the Rent Administrator be, and hereby is, affirmed.


                                            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