STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X    SJR #7077
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :    ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                DOCKET NO. EI110274RO
                                              :    DRO DOCKET NO.ZBL110215R
            47-40 41st Realty Corp.                TENANT: Mary Ramirez

                               PETITIONER     :
          ------------------------------------X

             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On September 14, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          August 29, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 47-40 41st Street, Sunnyside,  New  York,
          Apartment No.1D, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the 
          owner had overcharged the tenant.

          The Administrative Appeal is being  determined  pursuant  to  the
          provisions of Section 2526.1 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent  Administrator's  order  was
          warranted.

          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.

          This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing of a  rent
          overcharge complaint by the tenant on December 7, 1987.  The owner 
          was served with a copy of the tenant's complaint and submitted  a
          complete rental history as required.  The owner stated in substance 
          that pursuant to a "so ordered" stipulation, the tenant had agreed 
          to discontinue all cases pending with the DHCR and the DHCR has no 
          further jurisdiction.  Additionally, the owner contended that the 
          DHCR had provided him with a certified rent history of the subject 
          housing accommodation, and that, based thereon, at  no  time  was
          there a rent overcharge.  In support of his contentions, the owner 
          submitted photocopies of the stipulation and of the certified rent 
          records.

          Under Docket Number ZBL110215R, the Rent Administrator established 
          the lawful stabilized rent as $205.76 effective  April  1,  1984,
          determined that the tenant had been overcharged  and  directed  a
          refund to the tenant of $7870.86, including treble damages on 
          EI110274RO













          EI110274RO
          overcharges collected on and after April 1, 1984.

          In this petition, the owner reiterates its allegations made below, 
          that the tenant had discontinued all cases pending with the DHCR, 
          and the DHCR has no further jurisdiction; that the issuance by the 
          DHCR of an Order Finding Rent Overcharge  directly  violates  the
          terms of the court-ordered stipulation; and that the certified rent 
          history at no time reflects a rent overcharge.  

          In answer to the owner's petition, the tenant stated, among other 
          things, that the document submitted by the owner was not a court 
          ordered stipulation, but rather was a  consent  agreement  signed
          under duress during an eviction proceeding and that it was neither 
          signed nor "so-ordered" by the judge.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  should  be
          denied.

          Section 2520.13 of  the  Rent  Stabilization  Code  provides,  in
          pertinent part, that an agreement by  the  tenant  to  waive  the
          benefit of any provision of the Rent Stabilization Law or this Code 
          is void; provided, however, that  a  tenant  may  withdraw,  with
          prejudice, any complaint pending before the DHCR,  based  upon  a
          negotiated settlement between the parties and with the approval of 
          the DHCR or a court of competent jurisdiction.

          An examination of the record in  this  case  discloses  that  the
          stipulation submitted by the owner in support of his  contentions
          was neither signed nor "so-ordered" by the Housing Court judge, and 
          that, accordingly, it does not meet the criteria set forth in the 
          Rent Stabilization Code, and the DHCR thus  retains  jurisdiction
          over this proceeding.  With regard to the assertion by the  owner
          that the certification of rents registered with the DHCR  precludes 
          a finding of overcharge by the DHCR, the Commissioner notes  that
          certification merely ensures that the copy provided is a true and 
          complete copy of the copy filed with the DHCR.  No representation 
          is made or intended  that  the  rents  as  recorded  therein  are
          determined to be lawful stabilized rents.

          Accordingly, the Rent Administrator's order was warranted.

          The owner is directed to reflect the findings and  determinations
          made in this order on all future registration statements, including 
          those for the current year if not already filed, citing this Order 
          as the basis for the change.  Registration statements already  on
          file, however, should not be amended to reflect the findings  and
          determinations made in this order.  The owner is further directed 
          to adjust subsequent rents to an  amount  no  greater  than  that
          determined by this order plus any lawful increases.



          The Commissioner has determined in this Order and Opinion that the 
          owner collected overcharges of $7870.86.  This  Order  may,  upon






          EI110274RO

          expiration of the period for seeking review  of  this  Order  and
          Opinion pursuant to Article Seventy-eight of the Civil Practice Law 
          and Rules, be filed and enforced as a judgment or not in excess of 
          twenty percent per month of the overcharge may be offset  against
          any rent thereafter due the owner.  Where the tenant credits  the
          overcharge, the tenant may add to the overcharge,  or  where  the
          tenant files this Order as a judgment, the County Clerk may add to 
          the overcharge, interest at the rate payable on a judgment pursuant 
          to Section 5004 of the Civil Practice  law  and  Rules  from  the
          issuance date of the Rent Administrator's Order to  the  issuance
          date of the Commissioner's Order.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and the 
          same  hereby  is,  denied,  and,  that  the  order  of  the  Rent
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:




           
                                                     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