Opinion
May 10, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.).
Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeals from the orders dated May 7, 1997, and June 5, 1997, are dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the orders dated May 7, 1997, and June 5, 1997, are vacated; and it 15 further,
Ordered that the order dated September 8, 1997, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and those branches of the cross motion which were to vacate the arbitration awards dated January 25, 1982, and June 13, 1982, and the parties' so ordered stipulation of settlement dated April 3, 1984, are granted; and it is further,
Ordered that Yehoshua Lefkowitz is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeals from the intermediate orders dated May 7, 1997, and June 5, 1997, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the proceeding ( see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeals from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment ( see, CPLR 5501. [a] [1]).
It is undisputed that Yehoshua Lefkowitz is a tenant in a rent-controlled apartment. He and his then-landlord, the petitioner's decedent, Abraham Weiss, agreed to submit certain disputes over rent increases to arbitration in a rabbinical court. Moreover, Lefkowitz and Weiss subsequently entered into a so ordered stipulation of settlement to resolve litigation regarding the resulting arbitration awards. It is further undisputed that the rent fixed in the arbitration awards and in the stipulation of settlement exceeded the amount which Lefkowitz was legally obligated to pay. Pursuant to the New York Rent and Eviction Regulations, "[a]n agreement by the tenant to waive the benefit of any provision of the Rent Law or these regulations is void" ( 9 NYCRR 2200.15), and "[i]t shall be unlawful, regardless of any contract * * * for any person to demand or receive any rent for any housing accommodations in excess of the applicable maximum rent established therefor by the State Rent Commission or the Division of Housing and Community Renewal" ( 9 NYCRR 2205.1[a]. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in enforcing the provisions of the stipulation of settlement requiring Lefkowitz to pay more than the legal rent, and the application by Lefkowitz to vacate the arbitration awards and the stipulation of settlement as unlawful and violative of public policy should have been granted ( see generally, Estro Chem. Co. v. Falk, 303 N.Y. 83; Matter of Delano Vil. Cos. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 245 A.D.2d 196; Draper v. Georgia Props., 230 A.D.2d 455; Cvetichanin v. Trapezoid Land Co., 180 A.D.2d 503).
Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.