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 APPEAL
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. DE210532RT
Ambrosia Arroyo, DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
DOCKET NO. K3102304R/T
Owner: Giset Realty
SeyFarth Management Co.
PETITIONER (Present owner)
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING FOR FURTHER PROCESSING
On May 26, 1989, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on May 12, 1989 by the
Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York
concerning the housing accommodations known as 465 46th Street,
Apartment 12A, Brooklyn, New York wherein the Administrator terminated
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.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on March 21, 1984 by filing a
complaint of rent overcharge and a Fair Market Rent Appeal.
In response, the prior owner stated that it had sold the subject
building. The present owner, who was served with a copy of the
complaint on April 10, 1989, did not respond.
During the course of the proceedings, the prior owner advised that the
matter had been settled and submitted a copy of a letter signifying the
tenant's intent to withdraw the complaint.
In the order here under review, based upon the withdrawal of the
complaint, the Administrator terminated the proceeding.
In her appeal, the tenant requests that the proceeding be reopened
because the present owner has not settled with her.
The prior owner contends that it has settled with the tenant and that
the matter should be referred to the present owner.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be
remanded for further processing.
On May 19, 1988, the tenant was requested to confirm her withdrawal of
the complaint within ten (10) days. The tenant's response which was
received by the DHCR on May 27, 1988 denied the withdrawal.
Moreover, pursuant Section 2520.13 of the Rent Stabilization Code, an
agreement to waive the benefit of any provision of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code is void; provided, however, that based upon
a negotiated settlement between the parties and with the approval of the
DHCR, or a court of competent jurisdiction where a tenant is represented
by counsel, a tenant may withdraw, with prejudice, any complaint pending
before the DHCR. The record indicates that the tenant was not
represented. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the withdrawal by
the tenant is void.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization
Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this proceeding be remanded for further processing and
that a decision be reached on the merits resolving the tenant's
Joseph A. D'Agosta