FA 110306-RT

                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  FA              110306-RT
                     PAUL FABRIZI,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      DC 110248-0M


          On January 21, 1991, the above-named  tenant,  filed  a  petition
          for administrative review of an order issued on January 2,  1991,
          by a Rent Administrator  concerning  the  housing  accommodation,
          known as Apartment 1-C, 86-18 Union Turnpike, Glendale, New York,
          wherein the Rent Administrator  determined  that  the  owner  was
          entitled to a rent increase based on a major capital  improvement

          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 petition for review.

          In his petition for administrative review,  the  tenant  requests
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and  alleges  that  no
          provision of a pending  increase  was  contained  in  his  lease.
          Attached to the petition is a photocopy of the lease.

          In answer to the tenant's petition the  owner  alleges  that  the
          tenant was advised of  the  pending  MCI  application  on  taking
          occupancy and that paragraph 32 of the  lease  states  that  DHCR
          order may authorize collection of an increase during its term.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that this petition should be denied.

          The Commissioner notes that the  tenant's  petition  against  the
          Rent Administrator's order concerns not the adequacy  f  the  in-
          stallations or eligibility of the owner to obtain a rent increase 
          based on major capital improvements, rather the tenant objects to 
          the collectibility of the increase as to him during  his  current
          lease term.

          Section 2522.5(d)(4) of the Rent Stabilization Code  provides  in
          pertinent part,

          FA 110306-RT

                   "(d)  Limitations:  No provision may be made 
                         in any vacancy or renewal lease for 
                         adjustment of the legal regulated rent 
                         reserved in the lease except as follows:

                                        * * *

               (4)  In the case of a vacancy lease, where an appli- 
                    cation for a rent adjustment pursuant to Section 
                    2522.4(a) (2) or (3), (b) or (c) of this Part 
                    (Major Capital Improvements and Other Adjustments) 
                    is pending before the DHCR, such lease also re- 
                    cites that such application is pending before the 
                    DHCR and the basis for the adjustment, and that 
                    the increase which is the subject of such appli- 
                    cation, if granted, may be effective during the 
                    term of the lease."

          The Commissioner notes that the tenant's lease contains  no  such
          recitation.  Accordingly, the Commissioner finds  that  the  rent
          increase is not collectible from this tenant until the end of his 
          current lease term.

          If the tenant has already paid the increase,  the  owner  is  di-
          rected to refund any excess rent paid by the tenant within thirty 
          days of the issuance of this Order and Opinion.  Should the owner 
          fail to do so the tenant may deduct such  excess  rent  from  his
          next rental payment.

          Since the order under review (Page  3,  Condition  2(b))  already
          contains a provision protecting the tenant from  the  eventuality
          alleged in the petition, there is insufficient reason to  disturb
          the Rent Administrator's order  which,  otherwise,  was  properly

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,  denied
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby
          is, affirmed.


                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                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