Only Certain Tenants Must Pay Increase for Doorman

LVT Number: 6698

Facts: In 1985 the DRA granted landlord's application for a $30 monthly rent increase for each tenant based on landlord's institution of 24-hour doorman service in 1983. Tenants appealed, claiming that landlord didn't get the consent of a majority of tenants for this rent increase. The DHCR modified the DRA's order and granted rent increases for two categories of tenants: (1) those who originally consented to the rent increase when landlord asked them in 1983 and (2) new tenants who moved in after the doorman service started in 1983. Both landlord and tenants appealed.

Facts: In 1985 the DRA granted landlord's application for a $30 monthly rent increase for each tenant based on landlord's institution of 24-hour doorman service in 1983. Tenants appealed, claiming that landlord didn't get the consent of a majority of tenants for this rent increase. The DHCR modified the DRA's order and granted rent increases for two categories of tenants: (1) those who originally consented to the rent increase when landlord asked them in 1983 and (2) new tenants who moved in after the doorman service started in 1983. Both landlord and tenants appealed. DHCR: To get the rent increase from all tenants, 75 percent had to consent to it. That didn't happen here. Landlord incorrectly counted tenants who didn't answer as having consented. However, all tenants benefitted from the doorman service since 1983 at a reasonable cost of $30 per month. Landlord can collect the rent increase from (1) all tenants who agreed to pay the increase and who didn't join in tenants' PAR, effective June 1, 1983, and (2) all tenants who moved in after the service started, regardless of whether they joined in tenants' PAR, effective as of the starting date of their vacancy leases.

[Mountbatten Equities: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. ED 430121-RO, ED 430192-RT, ED 410195-RT, ED 410054-RT (12/16/92)]. 11-page document.

Downloads

ED430121-RO.pdf676.34 KB