Docket No. CB 210007-RT
                                    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.: CB 210007-RT

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: ZBJ 220072-OI
          Mark Berkovic                           Premises: 2765 Ocean Ave.,
                                                            Apt. 5J, Bklyn.,
                                                            New York
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

              The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations described above.

              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 submitting to the 
          Administrator an Application for Rent Increase based upon the 
          tenant's installation of two air conditioners in 1987.

              The tenant responded to the application by alleging inter alia 
          that there was no agreement between the owner and tenant for a rent 
          increase, and that the air conditioners in question were installed 
          in 1972 and 1976.

              The Administrator issued an Order directing an increase of the 
          tenant's rent due to the installation of the two air conditioners 
          by the tenant.

              In his appeal, the tenant reiterates that the air conditioners 
          were installed in the 1970's.

              The Administrator is of the opinion that this petition should 
          be denied.

              An examination of the record reveals that the subject apartment 
          was visited by a DHCR Inspector who found "Two air conditioners 
          installed by tenant extend beyond building line", the finding that 












          Docket No. CB 210007-RT

          the air conditioners protruded beyond the building line thus 
          allowed the Administrator to grant to the owner a $5 per air 
          conditioner ($10 in total for the two units) monthly rent increase.  
          The tenant does not dispute the Inspector's finding on appeal.  Nor 
          does the tenant dispute the inspector's finding that the air 
          conditioners were installed by the tenant.  Rather, the tenant 
          argues on appeal that, since he, rather than the owner, purchased 
          and installed the air conditioners (the date of the purchase and 
          installation is irrelevant to the Commissioner's finding) that any 
          rent increase awarded to the owner as a result would be tantamount 
          to unjust enrichment of the owner and that the tenant would thus be 
          forced to "pay for nothing."

              As a matter of general policy, the Division of Housing and 
          Community Renewal (DHCR) will interpret the fact that an air 
          conditioner protrudes beyond the building line as an additional 
          service provided by the owner.  The additional service is what the 
          Administrator gave the owner permission to charge the tenant an 
          additional $10 per month for.  The Commissioner is thus of the 
          opinion that the tenant's consent was not required for the rent 
          increase requested by the owner and granted by the Administrator.

              The Commissioner notes that there is a dispute as to the status 
          of the subject apartment.  The Commissioner feels that the DHCR 
          policy enunciated above is the same for rent-controlled and rent- 
          stabilized apartments; thus, the subject apartment's status is not 
          relevant to the proceedings hereunder review.

              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, denied.

          ISSUED:



                                                                            
                                             Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                             Acting 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