STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
Artha Management, Inc.,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 16, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on July
27, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 307 East 85th Street, New York, New York,
Apt. 4-W, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's application
to restore the rent.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly denied
the owner's application for rent restoration.
On January 4, 1988, the owner filed an application for rent
restoration alleging that the services which were the subject of
the Rent Administrator's rent reduction order of August 18, 1986,
under Docket No. LC003601S, were no longer in issue because the
parties entered into an agreement settling the matter, which
centered on the size of the tenant's bedroom. A copy of the
stipulation was attached to the application.
The tenant filed an answer to the application alleging that the
owner's claim of settlement is incorrect in that the settlement
specifically excluded any settlement of the issues raised in the
rent reduction order of August 18, 1986, under Docket No.
On appeal, the petition-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that the
parties settled the matter in dispute and had notified the DHCR of
this prior to the issuance of the appealed order, and that the
tenant withdrew two other proceedings in which the identical issue
The petition was served on the tenant on October 11, 1988 and on
October 24, 1988, the tenant filed an answer to the petition
stating that the owner misinterpreted the stipulation signed on
November 11, 1987, in that the stipulation did not address the
owner's improper reduction of the tenant's bedroom space. The
tenant also claims that the other two DHCR proceedings are
irrelevant in that one was a fuel cost adjustment challenge which
concerned the number of rooms and the other was a harassment
proceeding in which the tenant claimed that the landlord was
threatening to evict him.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The Commissioner has considered and rejects the petitioner's
contention that the issue of the reduction in size of the tenant's
bedroom space was addressed and settled by the stipulation entered
into by the parties on November 23, 1987.
A review of the file shows clearly that provision five of the
settlement agreement provides that:
This stipulation of settlement does not modify or vacate
order no. ZLC003601-S issued under docket no. LC003601-S,
a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof,
and, said order shall continue to have the same validity
that it had when it was first issued by the DHCR on
August 18, 1986 until same is modified or superseded as
required by law or DHCR regulations.
The other proceedings cited by the owner did not concern the
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the file is absent any
credible basis for contradicting the Rent Administrator's
determination that the owner's restoration application should be
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, and
the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately reapply for
a rent restoration.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA