ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BJ 410350 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.:  BJ  410350  RO
                                                             
               430 REALTY CORP.               :              
                                                 D.R.O. DOCKET NO.:
                                                 TC                 077058-G
                                                
                                 PETITIONER   :  
          ------------------------------------X 

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On October 2, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review  against  an  order  issued  on
          August 28, 1987, by the Rent Administrator,  10  Columbus  Circle,
          New York, New York, concerning  housing  accommodations  known  as
          apartment 14C, 430 East 86th Street, New  York,  NY,  wherein  the
          District Rent Administrator determined that the  tenant  had  been
          overcharged. 

               The Commissioner notes that  this  proceeding  was  initiated
          prior to April 1, 1984.  Section 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, any reference in this order  and  opinion  to
          Sections of the Rent Stabilization Code is to the Code  in  effect
          on April 30, 1987, and this  proceeding  is  being  determined  in
          accordance therewith.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all  of  the  evidence  in  the
          record and has carefully considered that  portion  of  the  record
          relevant to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.  

               This proceeding  was  commenced  by  the  filing  of  a  rent
          overcharge complaint by the tenant on September 30, 1983 with  the
          N.Y.C. Conciliation and Appeals  Board,  one  of  the  predecessor
          agencies to the DHCR.  The tenant took  occupancy  pursuant  to  a
          two-year lease commencing on May 1, 1980 and expiring on April 30, 
          1982, at a monthly rent of $2100.00.  That lease, on  May  1,1981,
          was renegotiated to expire on December 31, 1982, at a monthly rent 
          of $1800.00.  In  her  complaint,  the  tenant  stated  that  upon
          renegotiating the $1,800.00 lease, she signed a waiver of any 



           

          claim for prior leases.  The tenant further alleged that the prior
          tenant, who took occupancy in 1978 as the first stabilized  tenant






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BJ 410350 RO
          following  decontrol,  paid  $1,400.00  per  month  rent  for  the
          apartment.         

               The owner was served with a copy of  the  complaint  and  was
          requested to submit rent records from the base date to  prove  the
          lawfulness of the rent being charged.  The owner did not  respond.

               In Order Number CDR 29,024, issued  February  17,  1987,  the
          Administrator found an overcharge of  $852.00.   On  February  19,
          1987, the tenant requested that the case be reopened, because  the
          Administrator's calculations  were  based  on  erroneous  figures.
          Upon reconsideration, on May 11, 1987  the  Administrator  revoked
          the order based on an irregularity in a vital matter, and reopened 
          the case to establish the legal stabilized rent.  

               The owner was, on May 14, 1987, again afforded an opportunity 
          to respond, and on June 15,  1987  was  sent  a  Final  Notice  of
          Pending Default, which it did not answer.

               In Order Number CDR 29,024, as amended, issued on August  28,
          1987, the Administrator found that the owner had failed to  submit
          a complete rental history, and determined that the legal regulated 
          rent  would  be  established  under  Section  42A  of   the   Rent
          Stabilization Code.  The Administrator established the complaining 
          tenant's initial rent as $1400.00, the last rent paid by the prior 
          tenant, and established the lawful stabilized rent as  of  January
          1, 1986 as $1,909.76 per month, in  accordance  with  the  default
          procedure.   Total  overcharges  in  the  amount  of   $41,390.62,
          including  excess  security  and  treble  damages  on  overcharges
          collected on or after April 1, 1984, were found.  

               In its petition, the owner claims that the tenant had  waived
          any claim for prior leases when she and  her  attorney  negotiated
          the lease beginning May 1, 1981;  that  the  landlord  and  tenant
          established, by agreement, the tenant's initial  legal  rent;  and
          that no overcharge exists.  

               In answer to the owner's petition, the  tenant  asserts  that
          the owner has repeatedly attempted to avoid  the  requirements  of
          the Re t  Stabilization  Law  and  Code  by  imposing  as  a  pre-
          condition for acceptance that the tenant was  required  to  accept
          the lease as a secondary lease only, falsely stating that tenant's 
          weekend address was the tenant's primary  residence.   The  tenant
          further  asserts  that  the  negotiated  waiver  of  benefits  was
          unenforceable.  The tenant also contends that the owner's  failure
          to register barred collection of any increase after April 1, 1984. 
          Additionally, the tenant requests reimbursement of attorney's fees 
          for her answer to the petition.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  should
          be denied.



               Section 42A  of  the  Code  requires  that  an  owner  retain
          complete records for each stabilized apartment in effect from June 
          30, 1974, (or the  date  the  apartment  became  subject  to  rent
          stabilization, if later) to date and to produce  such  records  to
          the DHCR upon demand.






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BJ 410350 RO

               Accordingly, in the absence of a  full  rental  history,  the
          Commissioner  finds  that  the  application  of  the  42A  default
          procedure was proper.

               Regarding the petitioner's contention that the initial  legal
          rent and a waiver of claims for the prior lease  were  established
          by negotiated settlement:  Section 2520.13  of  the  current  Rent
          Stabilization Code states, in pertinent part:  An agreement by the 
          tenant  to  waive  the  benefit  of  any  provision  of  the  Rent
          Stabilization Law or this Code is void;  provided,  however,  that
          based upon a negotiated settlement between the  parties  and  with
          the approval of the DHCR, or a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction
          where a tenant is represented by counsel, a tenant  may  withdraw,
          with prejudice, any complaint pending before the DHCR.     

               The Commissioner finds that the agreement entered into by the 
          owner and the tenant was not entered into with the approval  of  a
          court of competent jurisdiction and therefore does not  constitute
          a waiver of the tenant's rights under the Rent Stabilization Code. 

               The petitioner  cites  the  case  of  Matter  of  Silgo  22nd
          Associates, Docket No. ARL 08579-L, as supporting  its  negotiated
          settlement.   That  case  is  distinguishable  from  the   instant
          proceeding in that the withdrawal and settlement arrived at was  a
          so-ordered stipulation in Civil Court, and  thus  fit  the  narrow
          exception drawn in the current Rent  Stabilization  Code,  Section
          2520.13. 

               Concerning the allegation of  the  tenant  that  the  owner's
          failure to register barred collection of any increase after  April
          1, 1984: the Commissioner finds that in the absence of a  tenant's
          petition for administrative review, this  may  not  be  raised  in
          answer to the owner's PAR.  The Commissioner notes that the  owner
          registered the premises in 1986. 

                 With regard to the tenant's  request  for  attorney's  fees
          for her PAR answer, the Commissioner notes that Section  2526.1(d)
          of  the  Rent  Stabilization  Code  provides  for  the  award   of
          attorney's fees in the proceeding before the Administrator.   DHCR
          generally does not award attorney fees  incurred  at  the  appeals
          level.  The Commissioner finds no reason to deviate from that rule 
          in the instant case. 

               The order of the Division of Housing  and  Community  Renewal
          awarding penalties may, upon the expiration of the period in which 
          the owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Artic e  Seventy-
          Eight of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and enforced 



          by a 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  provisions  of  the  Rent
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

               ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is  denied






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BJ 410350 RO
          and the Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed. 

          ISSUED:





                                                                        
                                          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