STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: ART 09162-K 
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO.: TC 074563-G 
                                                                 CDR 07177
                                PETITIONER    :          Louis Bombart
          ------------------------------------X  OWNER - c/o J  &  L  REALTY

               On April 1, 1986, the  above-named  petitioner-tenant  timely
          refiled a Petition  for  Administrative  Review,  which  had  been
          previously rejected, against an order issued on August 30, 1985 by 
          the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New  York,  New  York,
          concerning the housing accommodation known as Apartment  5F,  1601
          Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Rent  Administrator
          dismissed the tenant's complaint.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all  of  the  evidence  in  the
          record and has carefully considered that  portion  of  the  record
          relevant to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.  

               The tenant commenced this proceeding  on  June  15,  1983  by
          filing a complaint of rent overcharge with  the  former  New  York
          City Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB), a  predecessor  of  the
          DHCR.  The tenant alleged that despite  the  absence  of  a  lease
          clause which would permit a rent increase during a lease  term  (a
          clause pursuant to Section 42B of the former Code), the owner  was
          demanding a  rent  increase  based  upon  approved  Major  Capital
          Improvements (MCI).  The tenant stated he had deleted the  Section
          42B clause from the lease and had initialed the  deletion  in  the
          margin before returning the signed lease to  the  owner  who  then
          signed it.
               A copy of the complaint was served on the owner on August 16, 

               In response, the owner asserted that it had  been  granted  a
          $53.02 rent increase by the CAB.  The owner further asserted  that
          a judge in landlord-tenant court had ordered  the  tenant  to  pay
          the increase because there  was  no  bilateral  agreement  on  the
          deletion.  Additionally, the owner stated that precedent for  such
          increases had been established in prior leases in which the tenant 
          had accepted such clauses without protest.  


          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: ART 09162-K
               In the order here under review, the Administrator  determined
          that the Section 42B clause inserted in  the  tenant's  lease  was
          valid and dismissed the complaint.

               In the appeal the tenant reiterates his belief  that  he  had
          avoided the rent increase by deleting the Section 42B clause  from
          the lease and the owner's having signed the lease thereafter.

               In responding to the appeal, the owner re-submits a  copy  of
          the answer submitted below and contends that the  tenant's  appeal
          seeks to overturn an authorized rent increase without offering new 
          insights or additional evidence.

               After careful  consideration,  the  Commissioner  is  of  the
          opinion that this petition should be granted. 

               Under the common law, an acceptance of an offer  must  mirror
          the offer.   The  tenant's  clause  deletion  constituted  both  a
          rejection and a counter offer which the owner could either  accept
          or reject.  The tenant argues correctly that by signing the  lease
          as altered by the tenant, the owner exercised  its  acceptance  of
          the counter offer.

               When  a  rent  increase  is  granted  for  a  major   capital
          improvement, the increase will be effective during a renewal lease 
          term, if there is a provision in the lease authorizing  collection
          of additional rent during the  term  pursuant  to  orders  of  the
          Division or the Rent Guidelines Board.   Otherwise,  the  increase
          may generally be added to the base rent for the  subsequent  lease
          term.  In the instant proceeding, notwithstanding that  the  Major
          Capital Improvement increase was effective April 23, 1982, and the 
          prior lease first expired May 31, 1982,  the  tenant  had  already
          signed a lease renewal which did not contain a Section 42B clause. 
          Thus, the parties had entered into a binding contract not  subject
          during its term to modification of the rent.  Accord:   CD  810141
          RT.  The Commissioner finds, therefore that the  lawful  regulated
          rent of the subject apartment  is  $346.12  as  of  June  1,  1982
          through May 31, 1985.      

               The  Commissioner  notes  that  the  effective  date  of  the
          increase was April 23, 1982.  The tenant apparently first paid the 
          increase on June  29,  1983.   The  owner,  therefore,  is  hereby
          ordered to refund so much of the MCI  increase  at  issue  as  was
          collected during the lease period June 1,  1982  through  May  31,

               The  Commissioner  further  notes,  however,  that  the   MCI
          increase was added to the base rent as of its effective  date  and
          is collectible as included within the  lawful  stabilization  rent
          during all future leases, beginning with the lease commencing June 
          1, 1985.

               This order may, upon the expiration of the  period  in  which
          the owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Artic e  seventy-
          eight of the civil practice law and  rules,  be  enforced  by  the

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: ART 09162-K
          tenant by offsetting not in excess of twenty percent  thereof  per
          month against any rent thereafter due the owner. 

               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, granted, and,  that  the  order  of  the  Rent
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is,  revoked  in  accordance
          with this order and opinion.


                                          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