DHCR Decisions
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CC220402RO ET AL.
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 NOS.: CC220402RO
CC220403RO
CC220404RO
CC220405RO
CC220428RO
RIDGE LEASING CO., CC220429RO
PETITIONER CC220430RO
------------------------------------X CC220431RO
D.R.O. ORDER NOS.:
BK220190OI
BK220186OI
BK220196OI
BK220194OI
BK220185OI
BK220197OI
BK220192OI
BK220193OI, respectively
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING EIGHT PETITIONS
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN PART
The above named petitioner-owner timely filed eight Petitions
for Administrative Review against eight orders issued by the Rent
Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York,
concerning housing accommodations known as various apartments, 7410
and 7420 Ridge Boulevard, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Rent
Administrator permanently increased the monthly rents of the
subject apartments by $3.25 for each air conditioner outlet
installed in each apartment. However, the owner had requested,
with tenant consent, that each tenant pay the total cost ($130.00)
of each outlet in a one-time payment with no increase in monthly
rent. (Some apartments received more than one outlet.)
The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator should
have increased the monthly rent.
The applicable section of the Rent and Eviction Regulations is
Section 2202.4, corresponding to Section 26-405.g.4(e) of the New
York City Rent and Rehabilitation Law.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CC220402RO ET AL.
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.
In these petitions, the owner contends that the Rent
Administrator's Orders are incorrect and should be modified because
no monthly increases had been requested. Instead, the owner had
requested, with the consent of the subject tenants, a one-time
increase of $130.00, for each outlet, $130.00 being the proven cost
of each outlet. Accordingly, the owner requests on appeal that the
Administrator's orders be amended to reflect a one-time charge of
$130.00 for each outlet.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should
be granted in part.
At the outset, the Commissioner notes that in at least one
other proceeding (BK220198OI) based on the identical fact pattern
regarding another apartment in the subject premises the
Administrator terminated that proceeding stating that there was no
provision for granting a one-time increase but also stating that
the parties were not barred from entering into a one-time voluntary
agreement for the one-time increase in question. That order was
without prejudice to the owner's right to refile for a one-fortieth
increase if the parties were unable to reach such an agreement.
That order was not appealed by the owner or the tenant.
A staff person from the Division has been informed by the
owner that based on the just cited order, the owner has collected
the one-time payments with tenant consent and has not increased the
rent by the $3.25 per outlet provided in the eight orders herein
under review.
Based on the above, and on the fact that the owner never
applied for the increase that it was granted, and also on the fact
that the $130.00 per outlet cost was documented in the proceedings
before the Administrator and the charge had the written consent of
the tenants herein, the Commissioner hereby revokes the eight
orders herein under review and the rent increases granted therein.
Any payment(s) in excess of $130.00 per outlet in the subject
apartments must be refunded. (According to the owner no such
excess was charged or received.)
The Commissioner cautions the parties that such private
agreements are not encouraged and can be risky and/or subject to
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CC220402RO ET AL.
abuse. For example, a dishonest owner could misrepresent the cost
of the improvement to the tenant(s). Furthermore, under Rent and
Eviction Regulations Section 2200.15 an agreement by a tenant to
waive the benefit of any provision of the Rent Law or Regulations
is void.
The Commissioner notes parenthetically that under the Rent
Regulation Reform Act of 1993 (RRRA) Section 26-405.g.4(e) of the
NYC Rent and Rehabilitation Law has been amended to provide that
prior approval by the DHCR of rent increases based on one-fortieth
of the cost of improvements to an individual apartment is no longer
required. However, under Rent Control the Division must be
informed of the increase on Form Number RN-79-b. See Operational
Bulletin 94-1. However, the RRRA became effective July 7, 1993
and is not applicable to the present proceedings.
Finally, the Commissioner notes that this order has no effect
on those other apartments for which the owner requested and
received a monthly increase with the consent of the tenants
therein.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction
Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
granted in part and the Rent Administrator's orders be, and the
same hereby are, revoked as are the rent increases therein.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|