EJ 410605-RT
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ----------------------------------x     S.J.R. 5998
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  EJ 410605-RT
                 MARLYN BRACCIA,          
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER     BK 410511-R          


          On October 24, 1990,  the  above-named  petitioner-tenant  timely
          refiled an Administrative  Appeal  against  an  order  issued  on
          August 17, 1990 by the District Rent Administrator,  92-31  Union
          Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the  housing  accommo-
          dations, known as Apartment 3-C at 23 Grove Street, New York.

          Subsequent thereto the owner filed a petition  in  Supreme  Court
          pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law a d  Rules,  re-
          questing that the proceeding be remanded  to  the  DHCR  for  the
          purpose of establishing  an  appropriate  rent  for  the  subject

          On December 6, 1991, an  order  was  signed  by  Justice  Sherman
          remitting the proceeding to the Division. 

          The issue herein  is  whether  the  District  Rent  Administrator
          properly denied the tenant's complaint of rent overcharge.

          The District Rent Administrator's order appealed  herein,  denied
          the tenant's overcharge complaint on the finding that the  issues
          of this case have been resolved by the Civil Court of the City of 
          New York by virtue of the "so ordered"  Stipulation of Settle-
          ment, under Index No. 75867/1989, issued on June 26, 1989.

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenant alleged, in substance, that  the
          District Rent Administrator erred in denying her overchar e  com-
          plaint on the basis that all issues  had  been  resolved  in  the
          Civil Court case; that the Civil Court Stipulation was agreed  to

          because it purposely avoided resolution of  the  overcharge  pro-
          ceeding and intentionally  made  no  mention  of  the  overcharge
          matter pending a DHCR decision on the overcharge complaint.

          After a careful consideration of the entire  evidence  of  record
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  should  be
          remanded to the District Rent Administrator f r  further  proces-
          sing of the tenant's rent  overcharge  complaint,  including  the
          establishment of a legal rent for the subject apartment.  

          EJ 410605-RT

          The tenant filed her rent overcharge complaint with the  DHCR  on
          November 16, 1987.  The owner initiated  a  non-payment  of  rent
          action in Civil Court against the tenant on May 15, 1989,  during
          the pendency of the DHCR proceeding.

          This action  culminated  in  the  execution  of  a  "so  ordered"
          Stipulation of Settlement between the parties on June 26, 1989.

          The Civil Court Stipulation of Settlement provided,  in  essence,
          that the tenant was to pay  the  owner  $1,848.00  and  that  the
          parties were to enter into a renewal lease at a recalculated rent 
          of $628.07 per month.

          Subsequently, the Article 78 proceeding initiated by the owner in 
          Supreme Court under Index No.: 17746/91 was withdrawn by a d  be-
          tween the DHCR and the owner on certain conditions, including the 
          condition that the proceeding may be  remanded  to  the  District
          Rent Administrator, for an expeditious determination of the legal 
          regulated rent and the amount of rent overcharge, if any.

          In view of the foregoing, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          this proceeding should be remanded to the District Re t  Adminis-
          trator for further processing.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code, it is         

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  granted
          to the extent of remanding this proceeding to the  District  Rent
          Administrator for further  processing  in  accordance  with  this
          Order and Opinion.


                                                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