Docket No. BJ220194RT

                                    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
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: BJ220194RT

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
          Tom Kijewski                            NO.: AJ220067OI
                                                  
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X


          ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN 
          PART


              The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 83 Calyer Street, Top Floor, Brooklyn,
          New York.

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

              The owner commenced these proceedings by filing an Application 
          for Rent Increase with the Administrator.  In the Application the 
          owner stated that the increased service would consist of "6 new 
          windows..."  Neither the total cost of the new windows, nor the 
          monthly rent increase to be borne by the tenant in consideration of 
          the new windows was stated in the Application.  The owner later 
          submitted cancelled checks and a paid bill for 14  windows which 
          were installed in the subject building.

              The Administrator issued the above-cited order, in which the 
          tenant's rent was increased by $70 per month in consideration of 
          the installation of "6 new windows".

              On appeal, the tenant makes various contentions.  Firstly, the 
          tenant contends that since the improvement was of a building-wide 
          nature it  constitutes a Major Capital Improvement (MCI) and the 
          landlord is thus barred from seeking rent increases from individual 
          tenants.  Tenant then contends that the owner had informed him 
          orally that the rent increase wouldn't be more than $30 per month.  
          Finally, the tenant contends that the Administrator erred by not 












          Docket No. BJ220194RT

          giving him an opportunity to reply to the owner's Application.

              The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be  
          granted in part.

              As for tenant's contention on appeal that the rent increase 
          ordered by the Administrator is too high, an examination of the 
          record reveals that the paid bill from Polar Systems, Inc noted 
          that 14 new windows were to be installed in the building, at a 
          total price of $2,800.  A recalculation of the rent increase 
          formula ($2,800/40 months=$70) reveals that the Administrator 
          assigned the entire price of the new windows to the tenant, instead 
          of prorating the tenant's share (6 tenant windows/14 new windows X 
          $2,800/40=$30), an amount equal to the owner's alleged "not more 
          than $30 per month" statement to tenant.  The Commissioner hereby 
          reduces the monthly increase for the windows from $70.00 to $30.00.

              It is undisputed that the tenant agreed to a rent increase of 
          $30.00 for the 6 windows.  Nor is there a dispute as to the cost of 
          the windows or that they were installed.  Therefore, while the 
          Administrator erred by not serving the tenant with the owner's 
          application, since the Commissioner has reduced the increase to the 
          agreed upon and proven amount, the Commissioner holds that the 
          tenant is no longer prejudiced by that failure and therefore a 
          remand is not necessary.

              As to the tenant's unsupported allegation that the owner should 
          have applied for a Major Capital Argument (MCI) increase rather 
          than an increase for an individual apartment, the tenant is correct 
          that where an owner installs windows on a building wide basis 
          (including exempt units) he or she must apply for a rent increase 
          of 1/60th of the cost per month as an MCI increase, rather than 
          1/40th of the cost as an individual apartment improvement.  (The 
          MCI rate has been reduced to 1/84th rather than 1/60th, but the 
          1/60th rate was in effect at the time of this owner's application.)

              DHCR records indicate that the owner has not applied for any 
          other increase based on the installation of windows.  City rent 
          records indicates the building has four units.  The evidence in the 
          record indicate that only 14 windows were installed, 6 of which 
          were for the petitioner's apartment.  Accordingly, there is no 
          evidence that the installation was building-wide.  The fact that 
          windows were installed in more than one apartment does not make the 
          installation building-wide.  (The Commissioner notes that the owner 
          lives in the subject building.)

              Accordingly, the $70.00 per month rent increase is hereby 
          reduced to $30.00.  The owner is hereby ordered to immediately 
          refund any rent increase collected for the windows in excess of 
          $30.00 per month as compounded by any applicable MCR (maximum 
          collectible rent) increases.  If the owner fails to refund the 
          excess rent, the tenant may deduct the amount of the refund from 






          Docket No. BJ220194RT

          his rent upon the expiration of the period in which the owner may 
          institute a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice 
          Law and Rules at a rate not in excess of twenty percent of the 
          total refund due per month until the refund has been totally 
          offset. 

              THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, it is

              ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and 
          the same hereby is granted to the extent that the Administrator's 
          order be modified so that the rent increase for the tenant be 
          reduced from $70.00 to $30.00 per month.

          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