Bryant Avenue Tenants' Association, et al., Appellants, v. Edward I. Koch,
&c., et al., Respondents (and five related actions.)
84 N.Y.2d 960, 644 N.E.2d 1381, 620 N.Y.S.2d 825 (1994)
December 8, 1994
1 No. 202 (1994 NY Int. 213) Decided December 8, 1994
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Andrew Scherer, for appellants.
Iris J. Korman, for respondent DHCR.
Joseph L. Forstadt, for respondents RSA and Katz.
Marcia P. Hirsch, for respondent Hyde Park Associates.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs,
in accordance with this memorandum, and, as so modified, affirmed. The
certified question should be answered in the negative.
The Division of Housing and Community Renewal's Rent Stabilization
Code (9 NYCRR § 2522.4(a)(8)) permits the collection of temporary
retroactive rent increases of up to 6% annually in addition to
collection of prospective, permanent rent increases of up to 6%
annually for major capital improvements (MCIs). This regulation
authorizes landlords to recoup arrears accumulated during the period
of administrative delay which occurs in the processing of applications
for MCI rent increases, from the filing of the landlord's MCI
application until the issuance of the order granting the permanent MCI
increase. However, because the regulation permits the collection of an
aggregate increase in rent in excess of 6% in a single year, we now
hold that it violates Rent Stabilization Law § 26-511 (c) (6).
Section 26-511 (c) (6) is clear on its face: "(t)he collection of any
increase in the stabilized rent for any apartment * * * shall not
exceed six percent in any year * * * with collectability of any dollar
excess above said sum to be spread forward in similar increments."
Thus the statute unequivocally places a ceiling on the total increased
rental amount that may be collected in a given year--spreading the
excess forward, thereby protecting tenants from precipitous rent
increases. DHCR's regulatory scheme permits collection of up to a 12%
increase in a single year, thus exceeding the statutory ceiling. The
regulation would thereby violate one of the primary purposes of the
SNIPPETS:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Andrew Scherer, for appellants.
for respondents RSA and Katz.
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, in accordance with
The certified question should be answered in the negative.
The Division of Housing and Community Renewal's Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR § 2522.4(a))
This regulation authorizes landlords to recoup arrears accumulated during the period of
However, because the regulation permits the collection of an aggregate increase in rent in
Thus the statute unequivocally places a ceiling on the total increased rental amount that may
DHCR's regulatory scheme permits collection of up to a 12% increase in a single year, thus
The regulation would thereby violate one of the primary purposes of the Rent Stabilization
v New York State Div.
Moreover, the regulation leaves little, if any, scope to the statutory directive that
In contrast, the merger of MCI rent increases into the base rent of stabilized tenants
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
|
