STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
----------------------------------x S.J.R. 5998
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER BK 410511-R
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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.
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