Did Court Settlement Resolve Rent Stabilization Coverage Issue?

Tenant sued landlord, claiming rent overcharge and improper deregulation of a rent-stabilized apartment. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without trial, arguing that landlord and tenant had settled the same claim in a so-ordered stipulation of settlement in a prior housing court eviction proceeding based on nonpayment of rent.

The court ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost. As a matter of law, any agreement by a tenant to waive the benefit of any provision of the Rent Stabilization Law is void. Landlord pointed out that tenant was represented by an attorney in the prior case and that RSC Section 2520.13 permits tenants to withdraw claims through a negotiated settlement. But the documentary evidence didn't establish as a matter of law that the prior court stipulation didn't violate RSC Section 2520.13. And the parties themselves aren't the ones who decide in the first place whether the apartment is subject to rent stabilization. A trial was needed to decide the extent to which the stipulation could be enforced under RSC Section 2520.13.

Reichenbach v. Jacin Invs. Corp., N.V.: App. No. 12773, Case No. 2020-02356, 2021 NY Slip Op 00041 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 1/5/21; Webber, JP, Singh, Kennedy, Shulman, JJ)