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

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.  BL410234RO
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO.TC82280G/
           MELOHN PROPERTIES                     TENANT: HOWARD BRUMER       

                                PETITIONER    : 

               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 
          be granted.  

               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
                                          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