BL410240RO




                                  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.  BL410240RO
          ROMFORD REALTY CO.                  :  DRO DOCKET NO.  L3117237R/
                                                       CDR 31,925
                                                 TENANT: KAMIAR TORBATI       
                   
                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X                             
             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               On December 23, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on 
          November 23, 1987 , by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall 
          Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 303 East 83rd Street, New York, Apartment No. 31D, wherein 
          the Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the 
          tenant.  

               The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was 
          warranted.

               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      
          March 13, 1984 of a rent overcharge complaint by the tenant.
          The tenant asserted that he had taken occupancy of the subject 
          accommodation  in September 1978 pursuant to a two year vacancy 
          lease at a monthly rent of $675.00.  The tenant further asserted 
          that the owner had compelled the tenant to execute a new lease with 
          a 25% increase six months before the termination date of the then- 
          existing lease.  

               In answer to the complaint, the owner provided a rent history 
          chart from October 1, 1979 and included a copy of Conciliation and 
          Appeals Board (CAB) Opinion Number 14,566 as Amended to prove the 
          established base rent.  

               Subsequent thereto, the owner submitted a copy of a "so 
          ordered" stipulation between the owner and a sub-tenant which was 
          executed on April 5, 1984.  Among the provisions agreed to was the 
          cessation of the complainant's lease rights to the subject apartment 
          and the execution of a new prime lease backdated to September 1, 
          1983 for the subtenant.

               In response to a DHCR request for additional information, the 
          tenant stated that he had vacated the subject apartment in May 1983 







          BL410240RO

          and had moved to another apartment in the building .  The tenant 
          submitted proof of rent paid, including cancelled checks and rent 
          statements issued by the owner, which indicated that the tenant had 
          paid rent for apartment 31D through February 28, 1984.  

               In the order here under review, the Administrator determined 
          that the lawful stabilized rent as of February 28,1984 is $932.97 
          plus a $14.19 surcharge and directed the owner to refund an 
          overcharge of $2993.58.

               In its appeal, the owner contends that the Administrator's 
          order should be revoked for the following reasons:  
               1)  the order incorrectly determined that the Civil Court 
          settlement was not pertinent to the proceeding;  
               2)  the complainant vacated the subject apartment on July 1, 
          1982, there was no rent charged to the complainant for the subject 
          apartment thereafter and therefore, there can be no overcharge for 
          the complainant after that date;  
               3)  the "so ordered" stipulation is binding on all subsequent 
          tenants.

               The tenant did not respond to the petition.  

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

               Review of the record discloses that the owner has not 
          substantiated its contention that the complainant vacated the 
          subject apartment in July 1982.  Moreover, the record reveals that 
          the  complainant paid and the owner accepted rent for the subject 
          premises through February 28, 1984.  Accordingly, the Administrator 
          did not err in finding an overcharge through that date.  
           
               The Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator was correct 
          in determining that the court-ordered stipulation of settlement is 
          not germane to the instant proceeding as the stipulated rent was an 
          agreement between the owner and the sub-tenant.  Moreover, since the 
          complainant was not represented by counsel, pursuant to Section 
          2520.13,the agreement is not binding upon the complainant.  Lastly,  
          since the stipulation  establishes the agreed upon rent only between 
          the subtenant and the owner and does not establish the legal 
          stabilization rent, the rent established therein is binding only on 
          the owner and the subtenant.  
               
               The record indicates that the subject accommodations are no 
          longer subject to the Rent Stabilization Law because its 421-a 
          benefits have expired.  

               The Commissioner has determined in this Order and Opinion that 
          the owner collected overcharges of $2,993.58.  This Order may, upon 
          expiration of the period for seeking review of this Order and 
          Opinion pursuant to Article Seventy-eight of the Civil Practice Law 
          and Rules, be filed and enforced as a judgment.   Where  the tenant 
          files this Order as a judgment, the County Clerk may add to the 
          overcharge, interest at the rate payable on a judgment pursuant to 
          section 5004 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules from the issuance 
          date of the Rent Administrator's order to the issuance date of the 
          Commissioner's Order.


          BL410240RO


               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, denied, and, that the order of the Rent 
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED



                                                                        
                                          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