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. BL410234RO
: DRO DOCKET NO.TC82280G/
MELOHN PROPERTIES TENANT: HOWARD BRUMER
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 24, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
November 18, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle,
New York, NY, concerning the housing accommodations known as
400 East77th Street, New York, New York, Apartment No.14H,
wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner had
overcharged the tenant.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to
the issue raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing on
January 25, 1984 of a rent overcharge complaint by the tenant. The
tenant stated that he was filing an overcharge complaint because the
owner had not provided a rent history from the base date.
In answer to the tenant's complaint, the owner stated that the
issue of the tenant's rent had been settled in prior proceedings
brought before the predecessor agency of the DHCR, the Conciliation
and Appeals Board (CAB) under docket numbers 41356G and 59406G. The
owner submitted copies of correspondence between the CAB and the
owner confirming the settlement and closing the proceedings.
In reply, the tenant did not dispute the owner's account
but asserted that the owner had not provided a base date rent
history as was required by law.
In the order here under review, the Administrator determined
that the owner was in default and directed the owner to refund an
overcharge of $3789.33 inclusive of excess security and interest.
In its appeal, the owner contends that the Rent Administrator's
order should be revoked as there was no overcharge. The Rent
Administrator should have reviewed its own records which indicated
that the tenant had filed three overcharge complaints, Docket Nos.
41356G, 59406G and the docket herein appealed, and that the proper
rent was agreed upon by a negotiated settlement conducted under the
auspices of the CAB. Under the terms of the settlement, the rent was
recalculated and the owner refunded the resultant overcharge.
Moreover, the legal rent was set by a "so ordered" stipulation in a
court proceeding in May 1982. The owner contends that the court
stipulation, which was not submitted to the Rent Administrator,
should be accepted on appeal as the owner was not aware that the
Administrator would not accept the rent established in the prior
In response to the appeal, the tenant asserts that he is
entitled to a rent history to determine if there was an overcharge
from the base date to the settlement date.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
The Commissioner finds that the tenant's rent was set in the
CAB proceeding wherein the parties agreed to the rent. The tenant
is bound by the terms negotiated and agreed to in 1980 and
reiterated in the 1982 agreement which perforce shows the legality
of the prior rents. Since the subsequent rent was correctly based
on the agreed rent, the Commissioner finds that there was no
The Commissioner notes that the record indicates that the
tenant purchased the subject apartment when the building was
converted to a cooperative.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and
the same hereby is, granted, and, that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, revoked.
LULA M. ANDERSON