The determination by DHCR in the March 8, 1995 order had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. A stipulation in Housing Court on March 2, 1990 settling claims by tenants on the premises did not preclude the tenants, who were parties to the stipulation, from subsequently filing a complaint with DHCR in 1992, pursuant to Rent Stabilization Law ([RSL] Administrative Code of City of N.Y.) § 26-514, for a rent reduction due to petitioner's failure to provide required services. The remedy provided by RSL § 26-514 is "[i]n addition to any other remedy afforded by law." Nor could the tenants prospectively waive their right to relief under RSL § 26-514 ( see, Rent Stabilization Code [ 9 N.Y.CRR] 2520.13). Prospective waivers of rent stabilization rights in a settlement agreement are invalid as a matter of public policy ( see, Draper v. Georgia Props., 230 A.D.2d 455, 457; Cvetichanin v. Trapezoid Land Co., 180 A.D.2d 503, 504, lv dismissed 79 N.Y.2d 933). Petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.