Docket No. CB 210007-RT
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: CB 210007-RT
NO.: ZBJ 220072-OI
Mark Berkovic Premises: 2765 Ocean Ave.,
Apt. 5J, Bklyn.,
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
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.
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Acting Deputy Commissioner