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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     DOCKET NO.: DK210345RT
          APPEAL OF

          Steven Saltzman
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO: BB230178OM 
          ------------------------------------X

          ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING IN PART PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE 
          REVIEW

          On November 17, 1989, the above named petitioner-tenant timely 
          refiled a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order 
          issued on September 1, 1989, by a Rent Administrator concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 2901 Avenue J, APT C7, Brooklyn, 
          New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner 
          was entitled to a rent increase based on the installation of major 
          capital improvements (MCIs).

          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 this administrative appeal.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on February 27, 1987, by filing 
          an application for a rent increase based on the installation of the 
          following MCIs at a total cost of $52,900.00:

          A)Boiler/burner; and
          B)Pointing & waterproofing.

          On September 1, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installations qualified as MCIs, 
          determining that the application complied with the relevant laws 
          and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted 
          by the owner, and allowing rent increases for rent regulated 
          tenants.

          In this petition, the tenant contends, in substance, that his 
          vacancy lease did not provide information about the pending MCI 
          increase; that the improvements were done to repair defects in the 
          building; and that the owner added the increase to his rent after 
          he had already been overcharged.














          Admin Rev. Docket No. DK210345RT

          In response to the tenant's petition, the owner contends, in 
          substance, that the rent charged to the tenant was within the Rent 
          Board guidelines; that the tenant was not notified of the pending 
          MCI application prior to occupancy; that the lease rider signed by 
          the owner and attached to the vacancy lease signed by the tenant 
          informed the tenant of the pending application; that item 31 of the 
          lease contains language which obligates the tenant to pay a rent 
          increase if found warranted by DHCR should the owner apply; and 
          that since the tenant signed the lease, he is obligated to comply 
          with the terms therein.

          In reply to the owner's response, the tenant maintains that the 
          rider was not attached to the lease when it was executed; and that 
          the rider does not contain his signature as it was never served on 
          him.

          In rebuttal to the tenant's assertions, the owner states that 
          proper notice was given to the tenant regarding the pending 
          application; that the rider which was attached to the lease was 
          overlooked by the tenant; that the owner failed to ensure that the 
          lease rider was properly executed when the lease was returned; and 
          that it would be inequitable for the tenant to gain an economic 
          advantage due to the owner's said inadvertence as he had benefitted 
          from the MCIs during his occupancy of the premises.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted 
          in part.

          The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the 
          alleged vacancy lease rider was not properly executed as it did not 
          contain the tenant's signature. Ultimately, it is the 
          responsibility of the owner to ensure that the vacancy lease and 
          attached riders have been signed by all affected parties in order 
          to validate said documents. In light of the fact that the "lease 
          rider" was not executed properly, the tenant's assertions shall be 
          deemed to have merit. 

          In the absence of a valid lease rider and in accordance with 
          Section 2522.4 (a)(5) of the Code, the increase was not effective 
          and collectible from apartment C-7 until the expiration of the 
          lease term then in effect at the time of issuance of the 
          Administrator's order (September 1, 1989), provided the renewal 
          lease contained a general authorization provision for adjustment of 
          the rent reserved by the DHCR order.



                                         [2]









          Admin Rev. Docket No.DK210345RT


          Accordingly, the owner shall refund to the tenant within 30 days of 
          the issuance of this order and opinion any monies collected as a 
          result of the MCI herein during the term of his vacancy lease.

          It is noted that the tenant may file an overcharge complaint with 
          the Division after the expiration of the time period herein 
          specified which may result in treble damages.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in 
          part and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          modified by changing the effective and collectible date of the 
          increase for apartment C-7 as provided for herein; and that as so 
          modified, said order of the Administrator be, and the same hereby 
          is, affirmed.





          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