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

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                    Artha Management, Inc.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:


          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 
          was raised.

          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 
          identical issues.

          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
                                             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