Yes. >> Okay. >> I attorney. Yeah. Okay. All right. >> Any reason we can't get the cases on here? >> That would be good. This is paper. You don't know what to bring, what not to
bring. Yeah, we're we're recording. I confirm that by tapping the mic. It's going through. It's registering. >> Okay. >> And the the recording is running and the time is running now. >> Okay. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the rent leveling board of the city of Jersey City. Having been properly advertised in accordance with the sunshine laws of the state of New Jersey on this date 10:1625, the meeting of the Jersey City Rent
Leveling Board is called to order at 6:11 p.m. Can I have a roll call, please? >> Chairman Dan Hill, >> present. Vice Chair Sullivan Johnson III >> here.
>> Commissioner James Ecock >> present. >> Commissioner Paul Revo. >> Phil Revo present. >> Sorry. Commissioner Phil Revo >> present. >> Thank you, Commissioner. There being a quorum of the board, the meeting will
proceed. Thank you for attending our meeting tonight. Everyone will have an opportunity to speak. Please speak only when recognized by the chair to speak. Address the board, not your adversary. Keep your presentation to the issues in
question. The board will listen to all sides of your complaint or application and come to a decision. All parties will receive a written decision in the mail. You will then have 45 days to appeal the decision to the superior
court. So, if you do not like our decision tonight, please be civil and appeal it when you receive it in writing. I count on your cooperation tonight. Are there any applications or for postponements of any matters
tonight? Chairman, we do not have any adjournments. Um, we only have the three uh matters on. Uh, is there any order you'd like to call? >> Yes. Since there's no cancellations,
we're going to call 225 Duncan Avenue. Illegal rent petition. Okay. >> Uh, whoever's here, you're here. Okay. If you could just come up to the microphone. >> Just if you could speak into the microphone, just state your name and spell it for the record, please.
>> Okay. Uh, my name is Taylor Gusaric. That's T A Y L E R. her last name, G O S P O D A R E K, attorney with Northeast New Jersey Legal Services. On behalf of the tenant who I have here today as well, we are here in response to an appeal by
my adversary uh who I don't believe is present. >> I'm sorry that is true. Uh they did ask for an adjournment prior and it was denied earlier today. The there was no appearance by the property owner or their uh legal counsel.
>> Um if I could, I would like to still respond to all of the statements in the notice of appeal by my adversary just for to preserve the record. Okay. Uh beginning with the first uh point uh in the notice of appeal um the
statement that the deter determination arbitrarily and without rational basis or adequate supporting proofs presumes no value of the tenants's work as superintendent. Um the tenant did act as superintendent in the building um beginning in 1996 several months after
she moved in. Therefore, her tenency was not connected to her employment there and then ceased working as superintendent um in 2017. Um there has been no documentation, evidence or otherwise of a rent arrangement in exchange for the tenant
being superintendent. Um which is also uh stated in the revised Bureau of Rent leveling determination in July. Um, I would also like to note that there was uh presumably an assumption of value um by the landlord and their sole discretion when they increased my
client's rent from $457 to $800 in 20 or 2018. Um, and this is the overarching issue and basically why we're here today. Um regarding the second point that the determination arbitrarily and without rational basis improperly
considers rents prior to the applicable statute of limitations which um as stated is 6 years uh dating back from the date of filing. Um this was again already addressed by the bureau but I will uh still address it on the record. Um again the issue here is the rent
increase in 2018 uh which is well within the six years uh if we go back from May 2023 which is when the application was filed by the tenant. Um regarding the statement that the landlord uh or that we are that we went beyond the statute
of limitations. Again the bureau addressed this by saying that the landlord failed to file annual landlord registration statements for 2015 to 2017. So therefore, they had to use 2014. Um, again, regardless, we are here concerned about the illegal rent
increase in 2018 from 457 to $800 and the subsequent increases annually thereafter. Uh, regarding the point that uh the determination arbitrarily and without rational basis improperly added a party without service or obtaining jurisdiction. Um, this is connected with
the fourth point in my adversar's notice of appeal that says that the determination arbitrarily and without rational basis denied 225 Duncan LLC of a reh hearing or an opportunity to be heard. Um, as the exhibits show, uh, there were emails between the man
property management company of the owner of the property at that time, KN&S management group on April 25th, 2025, clearly showing that they were actively participating in the investigation by the bureau. >> Do you want me to continue? >> Continue. Yes.
>> Okay. Um uh regardless, now that we are here actively um uh peering for the appeal, um we are going to assume that my adversary is waving that jurisdictional defense given that we are and they are
fully participating in this. Um I do see that now my adversary is here. So I would you like me to let him speak? >> Your name again? I'm sorry. I just want to make sure. Taylor.
>> Thank you. >> And I I'll respond to any comments made as needed. Thank you. >> Okay. Should we ask a questions? >> You want to ask a question? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Sure. >> One thing that's hard to determine in this file >> is the actual rents uh paid by the
tenant and how they graduated. uh the tenant provided some uh some you know uh evidence of their payments. So it seems starting on April 1st, 1996 >> Mhm. >> you know it was 500 and then it seemed
to continue to be 500 till August of 1996 and then it went to 400. >> Correct. >> So was this the time? Did it go to 400 because she was the super then?
>> Um there's no actual agreement that states that, but it was that time that she began acting as superintendent. Yes. >> Okay. And then after that, we saw a lease in the file, you know, that raised her rent to like 416, which would be the
normal 4%. >> Correct. So, you know, on that basis, we would we're looking at that is say where we're going to graduate from each time uh that a a rent increase is assessed.
It's going to go up 4% from 416 to whatever's next. But somewhere, you know, and it's not really um in any kind of order the receipts we have. >> Okay. >> But then it goes up to 457. We have a
receipt of December 19, 2017. It's 457. And then there's a jump where uh the rents start to become in 2019
$800. >> So what is your tenant now paying $800? Um my my client has paid all of the increases up until she received this determination which told her what her legal rent was uh was supposed to be and
therefore she started paying the legal rent which was just a few months ago. So this year but she did pay all of the the increases um throughout the years albeit the illegal increases. >> Okay. Cuz yeah it's you're not going to get to 800 in 2019
going up 4% a year. So that's yeah that's that's uh in our position the the crux of this issue is primarily in 2018 when um by only verbal means no written notice no offer of new lease um her rent
was increased uh about $330 in 2018 and then thereafter as you can see in the lease documents it was within the 4% but that it's that one hike that um obviously was an illegal rent increase and then it was subsequent annual increases thereafter.
>> Okay. Yeah. Because there really is no paper trail to show us >> how did how'd they get to 800. >> There's no, you know, it just doesn't follow from the start of the rent increases. >> Correct.
>> Okay. So, that we just needed I I needed that background of Okay. You know, how we got here. >> Yes. Yeah. That is the the the gist of the the issue I think that we're all here for today. Okay, >> thank you. >> Any other questions? >> No.
>> Okay, >> counselor. >> Just state your name. Spell it out, please. >> Yes. Patrick Jordan. P A T R I C K J O R D A N for the uh respondent 225 Duncan
LLC. Mhm. >> Um 225 Duncan um brought um the application challenging the decision um essentially because uh there was no dispute including by admission in the um
petition for the overcharge that uh the petitioner here was the superintendent of the unit prior to November 2017. Um, and it it it the prior decision uh I
think reflected that because there was no written documentation supporting um how much the rent was reduced as the result of her superintendence services there. The decision was based
essentially on an assumption uh that the rent was only what was set forth in the lease and then the increases I think as the board was just considering wouldn't reach the $800 uh number that was established
um essentially upon the termination of her status as superintendent November 2017. Um however the implication uh that is created by that is there was no value of the tenants
work as superintendent. If no credit is given for the amount the assumption is essentially that the value is zero. um and the position that among other with respect to the decision itself and I'll address in a moment um the establishment
of the rent later but the decision itself to the extent it um assumed that the value of the superintendent services was zero um was irrational because there had to be some value for it. Um I I I
don't think um either party would dispute otherwise that there must have been some value attached to it. Um so for that reason um it creates the question of well how how can how is the rent properly established in the absence
of any formal documentation establishing what the the superintendent value was? Um, and I think the the board's uh decision properly uh acknowledged that some consideration ought be part of uh
determining the rent based on the status of superintendent. It seemed to assume zero for lack of anything else. Um I think here notably that the tenencies existed for a very long time. And this isn't somebody who took possession even shortly before this uh employment status
was terminated in November of 2017. Uh the tenant occupied the apartment since um 1996 or 1998 I believe. Um but the the the effect of that um is that during that
period of time um she's not just a tenant in in the the apartment. Um and even the uh anti- eviction act for purposes of protections under uh New Jersey state law acknowledge that um
somebody acting as an employee or superintendent or when a tenency is conditioned on employment. It there's special consideration given to that. It provides a grounds for um terminating the teny um upon the termination of
employment which is a remedy that would ordinarily not be available um to a property owner trying to dispossess somebody from a unit. And the idea is that but for this employment status this this teny wouldn't exist. So therefore at the
termination of the employment status uh there's an opportunity for the owner to essentially start fresh. They can based on the termination of the employment status alone uh recover possession of the unit for the purposes of uh the
Jersey City Brenton ordinance. I think part of the definitions about what what is subject to the jurisdiction of the rent control ordinance actually answers the question about um what the status is
um and and what the takeaway is from somebody's prior employment because the code doesn't specifically address the issue of well what happens if an extremely low below market or otherwise uh a rent that otherwise wouldn't be offered or established but for
employment um is terminated. Um so the code sets forth that the rent control ordinance is subject to what the act defines as dwelling units in certain circumstances and then that's under section 260-1.
And then within dwelling unit it speaks to certain tenant occupancies. So I think here what we're looking at up until 2017 is something that's just outside of uh the rent regulation. Um and in certain circumstances that might
just be presumed because a unit occupied by a superintendent I think it's I the board could take notice that often there is no rent paid with a superintendent apartment. Sometimes there is some um and often that's going to be dictated by probably
the size of the building and the amount of additional duties that would be imposed pursuant to the teny. Um here there was some consideration in addition to the mere duties of superintendent. Nevertheless, the point is that she's not just a tenant. Um, and if she's not
just a tenant, then that's going to take the unit outside the definition of a dwelling under the code and outside the jurisdiction of the uh the rent control ordinance in general. The unit is essentially something that is not
subject to the rent leveling ordinance until she becomes a tenant. And she becomes a tenant when she ceases to be an employee. and she ceases to be an employee in November of 2017. Uh so the our view of it is that that's
essentially the initial rent. Um there and to the extent that we're looking for something to establish or a methodology to establish how to determine her rent when she first becomes a tenant, the the code again, it doesn't specifically deal
with the status or situation in which somebody's status as an previously an employee is then terminated. But there are analogous um circumstances where rents are established in the absence of an ordinary increase. Um and there's
really two. One is how the rents were established when the code was first enacted in 1983. And then also um when a unit is moved from an otherwise exempt status. So, uh, when a unit's removed from an otherwise exempt status, um, the
code deals with that under it's part of 260-1, any new dwelling or housing space being rented for the first time for the initial rent only. Um, I think that's probably the closest
here definitionally to to what's happening because without her being solely a tenant uh pursuant to the code, uh, the units, although it's not enumerated, essentially exempt. Um, and there might
be other circumstances where um, an otherwise uh, a unit that might otherwise be regulated is occupied by somebody who might not qualify for the protections of the Jersey City rent ordinance. One, for example, might be if it was occupied by a squatter or
something like that where there's no landlord teny at all established. Um here there's a employment status and part of the employment compensation is occupancy of the unit but that's not just a tenant at least not as
contemplated by the rent code. So for that reason, we'd say it's analogous to an exempt unit like otherwise uh another example might be a unit that was previously public housing regulated or something and it becomes removed from that exemption and then the first rent
that's charged upon being removed from the exempt status becomes the rent. So here that would be the rent that was established in 2017 when she started her teny essentially when she ceased her employment status and started her teny. So that would be the initial rent when
the unit ceased to be exempt and the methodology for that un is not arbitrary and it's contemplated uh by the code when a unit that was previously exempt comes on into regulated status. Um I I we we also would say in the absence of
anything else at a minimum it would be more intuitive and in line with other parts of the code if the rents were established at least by a comp or a comparable unit. And that's what the
code contemplated initially upon its enactment um did when the quote base rents were not possible to to determine um under the base rent definition um addressing that situation. The code
reads, "If sufficient evidence um is a is available from which the rent leveling administrator or board can determine legal rent charged or actually received as provided above, then the rent leveling administration uh administrator and board have the power to determine the legal base rent by
considering the legal base rent of other units subject to the provisions of this chapter which are comparable in size, location, and facilities to the subject unit. Um the other units in this building um generally are leased for above the $800
um and which is not unusual for an apartment like this in this area. I think the >> Excuse me, counselor. >> Yes. >> One minute left, please. >> Sure. Uh I think the some of the other um monthly rents are in the amounts of
1345 for unit 1s, 1994,752 for uh unit 4, uh 2,119 for unit 5, and 1,700 for unit 6. So again, in summary, we would say the the unit is essentially
removed from the definition of really a dwelling because she wasn't a tenant prior to her termination um as an employee. Uh she became a tenant and the unit became subject to the rent ordinance. um in 2017 when she was only a tenant as contemplated by the code and
to establish the rent at that time. We'd insist that the most uh intuitive way to do it would be to treat it as an exempt unit before that and that the initial rent she was paying after um she became just a tenant establishes the rent here in the the $800 number. Um or in the
absence of that, if the board was looking for some kind of base date, um it ought not look back to some old rent from 2014. That also may be uh subject to when she was still acting as an employee, but should look to comps as
was contemplated by how uh the board would determine base rents in the absence of other evidence when the code was enacted. >> Okay. Thank you, counselor. >> Yes. Um for the transcriptionist um this is Sullivan Johnson. We just want to make sure that we can identify
ourselves. I do have a concussion counselor and u regarding the um rent registration document. Is there a particular reason why that wasn't submitted? >> I I'm not sure. I'm not sure why the
rent registration wouldn't have been submitted. um we don't argue that they um wouldn't have been subject to the registration since 2017. Um we can see that they would uh prior to that if if uh
they they to the extent they did register um I'm sure they were doing so in observance of what they thought their obligations were under the code. But nevertheless, because this is an employment situation, um we'd submit that they in fact were exempt at that
time. >> Anybody else? Any question? >> Uh James Ecock, I don't understand how Miss Jackson is considered an employee because her rent was initially started at 500. Then it looks like she got a
discount to $400 where $100 would supposedly be the compensation for being the landlord. So is she 80% tenant, 20% employee? It's it doesn't seem like that, you know, it would be fair to just say she's
an employee, but she's still paying 80% of the rent, >> right? So that that it um develops the problem. I I and I would agree it's it's unclear on that um where the line is
exactly what but this is what she's not. It seems she doesn't seem uh to be um a tenant as contemplated by the code who's merely paying rent. the her uh consideration um for occupancy here was
some combination of payment um and services. Um and the the value of that uh together as compared to a tenant who's just routinely um paying rent is
an apples to oranges comparison. Um the again I I I I would point to um the instances where if this was as many cases the apartment occupied by a superintendent who was paying no rent.
Um it it seems like it would defy logic to say well the rent is going to be 4% of an increase off zero after her uh employment status is terminated. >> Um because then it's going to perpetually be zero. It even seemed it would seem probably irrational if it was
extremely low. If she was paying some nominal amount, $100 a month, meanwhile servicing a very large building, but because it's an apples to oranges comparison, it is essentially I would submit that that's the problem. It's undefined
um in in terms of how it would fit into the code. Quite literally, it's undefined as dwelling unit is defined in the code, which is what subjects it to the jurisdiction of the rent control ordinance. And I don't think this I don't think by saying her removing her
uh as a tenant def definitionally and exempting the unit up until the time she's solely a tenant creates any foul precedent. Um it's probably going to be an unusual situation where that occurs. Not the least of which because if something isn't routinely negotiated,
possession would otherwise be or at least the owner of the building would otherwise be entitled to recover possession. In fact, to hold the owner of the building to this could create a disincentive in the instances where somebody might be working as uh an employee of the building for the
property owner to take no chances. I'm not going to take chances going forward about what the rent's going to be established at rent control. this person wants to continue to live in here. I I would make a deal with them to establish the rent after they're no longer going to be superintendent because we no longer need those services or we've hired somebody else, but I'm not going
to take my chances. I'm just going to seek dispossession here so that I don't have to worry about the status of what the rent's going to be and I'm going to be sandbagged with an overcharge claim later. Um I think that would be against public policy here. The property owner already elected not
to take that route. They elected to uh continue on when they otherwise might not have had to with a teny based on a generally a reasonable rent. Uh this wasn't a a wild rent that was in gross success of what would have otherwise
been collectible for the unit and it's below even what the other units in the building were for the comp substantially. So, um, and I I I think for that reason, that's most often going to be the situation. If, um, somebody's removed from an employment status and then tendency is created, they're going
to either agree to an initial rent, uh, from a unit that was exempt previously, which the code specifically contemplates, um, or the parties aren't going to agree, and then the unit will probably be vacant after that. Yeah, a followup. James Eco,
>> what we didn't see in the file are a few things. Well, there's no employment contract and then uh the point about Oh, in 2017 it seemed like they wanted
Miss Jackson to vacate, but then we never saw, you know, any more. We didn't see enough documentation after that to establish well obviously she didn't leave and uh you know then what was the next like
the the next leases we have I think come from the new ownership or current ownership. So there's this gap from like 2017 to 2023 I believe. So you know again how do we fill this gap? There's no, you know, we're talking about a lot
of things that we have no evidence or no documentation for. >> I I understand that the the perceived um inconsistency there, but I I I I think I might be able to illuminate it in so far as that the notices that were sent purport to terminate the tenency in some
capacity. that would have been routinely done uh and is required even in certain circumstances where the parties expect a tenency to continue pursuant to the terms of the anti- eviction act. Um one place that would routinely be seen is if
um a property owner seeks to increase uh rent by a certain amount by notice. um the statute uh the anti- eviction act does provide for that under 61 2A18- 61.1 but um in order to do so the notice
which is often uh informally referred to as a notice of rent increase must uh for purposes of case law in New Jersey also terminate the current existing teny and then set a new rent essentially at a holdover rate. Um similarly here where
there was questions about whether or not there was an employment status beforehand. Um in order to preserve their rights and also satisfy um any requirements they would have had to if they needed to proceed with a possessory action based on the termination of the
employment. The notice would have had to read that way and did so here. Um and I I think it was Mr. Salerno's notice um probably an observation of that part of the statute that said well whenever whatever is going to happen next for us to take that next step we need to make sure statutoily we've satisfied our
requirements of saying the employment status is terminated and the old terms of the teny are terminated I think the gap in time is actually informed by what happened which is that after the termination of the employment by notice which yes also purported to terminate this teny but it would have had to do so
in order them to set terms going forward Um it was the the gap is filled in by the payment of rent at the $800 rate which I think is acknowledged happened after that. Um and I think everybody was satisfied. I the uh petitioner here um
for a long time remained in the apartment paying that rate and uh the owner of the building took no other action. Um I think the lease was ultimately not executed. Um, but I I I think there was I it's not subject to the statute of fraud, so it wouldn't be required to be in writing and I think
the tenency was established at that rate at that point. So I I don't although it would have been nicer if everybody executed a lease so it completely formalized everything. I think the circumstances are explained between the statute and also the course of conduct of the parties and paying the rent, remaining in occupancy and no other
issues being created during that period of time. Yeah. I don't I don't believe we saw a lease for 800, but then the later leases, I guess, built on the $800. >> Yeah. I I I think what the owner had tried to do at that point was they said, "Well, we we've we have a tenency
established at this $800 number. Now, we'd be entitled to take our 4% increases off of that, even though they didn't have an initial lease. um if that didn't meet regulatory compliance as to the uh increases that would be available under
the code at that rate. We acknowledged that if they didn't register for that time, there might have been an overcharge for that amount if it was paid after that time. Um but uh purely for the regulatory problem of the subsequent rents uh not being registered
after the establishment of the initial rent which again seems to have been acknowledged by the parties by an occupancy and tenency that continued for some years at this rate where it was paid and no objection was made without issue. >> Any more questions? >> Yeah. Hi Phil Revo. I'm a new member to
the rent leveling. >> Press it. >> That proves I'm a new member of the rent leveling board. My name is Phil Revo. Thank you for everyone for being here and I pardon if uh I ask questions that
aren't supposed to be asked, but uh it what I see is uh Miss Ms. Jackson. Miss Jackson was paying 476 one month and the next month she's
paying 800. Whether we assume this, whether it's a good rent because other people are paying 1300, 1,800, whatever, that's a heck of a lot more than a 4% increase. And also instead of this boilerplate one-page
lease, it should in in you know, if you're fortunate enough to own buildings and have a house on Gford, you should know that you should say what you're paying Miss Jackson for the work. And there's there's no proof, unless I
missed it, of employment. So to say she wasn't paying rent. Can am I allowed to ask Miss Jackson a question? No. Okay. Uh was the land lady receiving 450? Was she receiving month money from Miss Jackson
every month? >> So So 225 Duncan wasn't owning the building at the the time that the employment status commenced. So the the the details about what it was exchanged between the parties at the inception of
uh her status doing this work um up until 2017 I wouldn't be able to speak to specifically in terms of the the the the beness of the record in terms of what were the terms. Um there isn't much
it seems. I I'm not sure again what um the owner at the time had contemplated or and we of course weren't privy to those discussions, but I think there's enough in the record just really by way of the petitioner's initial application to establish that she was working there
in some capacity. She in fact volunteered that information when she commenced the the claim. So I I don't think it's an issue of whether or not she was or or wasn't working there. in terms of the the um the the magnitude of
well is this enough work to say make her something less than a tenant or not. Uh again, I I agree that that that's where I think most of the indefinitess and the uncertainty about this arises from because if if it was a circumstance
where it was a superintendent employment where she her rent was zero, um I I think it would be a little more intuitive to say, well, of course, it can't continue to be zero if she's no longer the superintendent. We have um you know part of the anti- eviction act
in New Jersey which does make a distinction between these two things at typical tenency and where someone's employed um and the rents aren't going to be increased off of 4% of zero for the simple reason that the mathematics would reveal that there's never going to be any rent for this apartment. That
indefinitess exactly creates the the problem here. Um but for us uh we we would say that well it's it is explained at least implicitly by the code. Um the code is something that is a municipal uh
law that is in derrogation of the common law. So we we would say that it ought to be strictly construed to its terms and it speaks to tenencies um or or I shouldn't say tenencies tenants. And a tenant is uh somebody who's occupying a
a a property in in consideration of rent or or or for a rent. Um that's not the only thing that was uh being exchanged here in consideration for occupancy. It was some mix of the two. It was some mix of
rent and uh a payment. Um it seems to be at the low end, but maybe it wasn't as much at the low end when her tenency started. that that's something we could uh consider as well. But the fact that it's I would say too indefinite to clearly
define again takes it out of that definition of tenant and dwelling unit under the code. Um and for that reason it's essentially not covered and it should be treated like an exemption for that reason. To do
so otherwise I I I think it's it's not contemplated by the code. It's it's it it doesn't fit into any construction of the code, including any of the two methodologies for remedying a situation where it's unclear as to what rent ought to be. For example, when a unit is
removed from an other exempt scenario or at the inception of the um Jersey City rent control ordinance and it would create a disincentive for parties when they want to agree on a teny after employment to do so. Okay? because it could create a circumstance where well
now it's just an insurance policy so that there's not a a massive unknown overcharge claim growing a propert might say well we all like each other we want to continue this you know we're this the superintendent services or the maintenance services whatever the case may be they're being contracted out now
or something else we'd like to continue this with you but we we can't because we don't we don't know how we can resolve the rent claim and and it is it would be a difficult problem to do because you as far as I would >> so one minute please please one minute
>> yeah we we would submit that you can't just settle a legal rent it's it would affect parties beyond the scope of a settlement um so it would it make it a very difficult problem to resolve even by a stipulation between the parties because you can't affect the legal rent
going forward for everybody else in the world just by settlement between the two parties at the table um for that reason we think the most readily available remedy here would be to say, well, this this wasn't really a tenency, at least not as contemplated by
the code. Um, and so it was an exempt unit before then. It became covered by the code when she became only a tenant and the parties could agree to to establish a rent at that time or not and and go their separate ways. Um, here they elected to do so and did so for
some time without issue. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We just one question. James Eco. Again, as my colleague, Mr. Revo uh mentioned, we still have difficulty in making up
the jump from 457 to 800 where we have, you know, no documentation, no rent rolls. So, I'd like to ask the bureau, how how did you you know, how do how do you address this? >> Do you want to call the hearing officer up? >> Yes.
>> Okay. I I you done with the questions with the council then? Yes. Done with the council. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Good. >> Good evening. >> Yes. >> We got to go through this carefully.
>> Director Shyron Richardson, please state your name for the record. >> Uh, Director Shyone Richardson. S H Y R O N E R I C H A R D S O N. Okay. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. All right. So, to answer your questions, um so as we see tonight, if you look at the the um the determination, um normally we would go back six years. Um we there we went back and forth with them several occasions versus versus email trying to get rent
roles because we needed the rent roles to establish what was the base rent at that time. >> Um we got we got nothing. We sent him an email and said, "Listen, if we don't get anything," and this was weeks that we're going to have to go to the most current rent role that we have was 2014. Also, based on what he said now, what what
what he's not saying is that any year that we don't have a rent roll, you do not qualify for an increase. Those years that you see going from 2014, what could have happened? You have permitted rent. So, even though you have permitted rent, permitted rent could be what you can charge versus what you are charging. So
those years that we had rent rolls that permitted rent could have went up every year, every year. Every year. So let's just say from the 500 every year they could have got the CPI even though they didn't charge her that. So that's what they would have been permitted to charge. But because there was no rent roles they didn't get that they didn't get sorry get did did not get that
increase. Um again as you're saying so and the other thing that we did establish that yeah it's it's evident because this notice to quit that there was some uh provision made where she was the superintendent but we reached out to them several times to say okay we have no documentation because even in the
rent row you could have had this is her rent because she's an employee but this is what she would be paying but there was nothing that said she got any discount and as the counselor said she was paying some rent >> so it's not you can't make up numbers that don't exist. she was paying zero. I
know zero from zero is nothing, but she was paying something. And that something could have been going up every year as a permitted rent had they just submitted the rent roles. So based on the evidence that we have, and to be honest, those years that we have no rent rows, any apartment in there, if they increase
their rent that year, that's illegal. We just don't have a petition from those people. So if those people find out and they submit a petition, we can actually say that we go back and we see these years there was no rent ro submitted. So you do not get the CPI for those years. So that means that there's some other apartments in there that may be charging
illegal rents because we have no rent roles, >> right? >> Okay. No, that's the only methodology you could use. >> Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councelor, you want to speak? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Dana Hill, Chairman, >> two minutes, please. >> Okay. Thank you. I just want to um >> for the record, can you just mention your name just so >> Yes. Taylor Gaspedaric on behalf of tenant. Again, um I do want to put on the record to uh there's been some um
miscommunication. The tenant started as solely a tenant. In April of 1996, >> in August of 1996, she began working as a superintendent. The allegation that those two are tied and therefore termination of her uh employment in the
building would have given grounds to therefore evalid. They were independent. She was a she was a tenant solely first. Also, there was an attempt to evict her in 2017 via the court system. It was deni or it was dismissed. The tenant can testify that
if if she would like or if you need more information, but after those notice to quits that were that were sent, the landlord did try to evict her. Again, it was dismissed. That's why she remained in the building. Um, so I just want to put on record that the employment was not tied to the teny. >> Um, and that is it. Okay. Any questions?
>> Thank you. Motion to close the public portion of the meeting. >> Okay. I have a motion from Chairman Hill to close the public portion of this meeting. Uh do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second from vice chair. All in favor? >> I >> I
want to read it off. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Uh name all of them. Oh, okay. >> Okay. So, I'm sorry. For the record, that was Vice Chair Sullivan Johnson, Chairman Damon Hill, uh, Commissioner
James Ecock, and, uh, Commissioner Phil Revo. >> Okay. >> Again, you have to speak into the microphone. >> Oh, make sure everything's on record. >> Okay. Read them.
>> Anyone have a motion? >> Anybody has a motion? you want to um it's going to be between you two. >> Okay. Um Commissioner Sullivan Johnson, um after hearing the testimonies that have been presented this evening and
taking in consideration statute 260-3 regarding allowable increases, u in my opinion, I don't think that that that the requirements have been fully met and the requirements are are established for a reason. And I also do believe that in
this instance, if we have a landlord, that to me is um I think it's just reasonable to assume that the landlord has a lot more control on tenency uh than a tenant and in establishing um what is going to take place with that
particular teny and uh given that this particular statute 260-3 uh does require you know the registration of the rent roll which was not supplied And based upon the testimony that was submitted, you know, there was um a failure in responding to
certain communications. I just believe that the recommendations presented by the bureau um of a rent increase at well of a rent establishment of $531 is appropriate. And that's the position I
would personally take. >> Uh so do we have a motion? Motion to >> motion to accept the hearing officer's >> Okay. I have a motion to accept the hearing officer's decision. >> Right. >> Um by chairman Hill. Uh do I have a second? >> Second.
>> Okay. I have a second from James Ecock. >> Roll call for the vote. Chairman Dan Hill. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Sullivan C. Johnson III. >> Yes. >> Commissioner James Ecock. Yes.
>> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Phillip Revo. >> Yes. >> Okay. The motion to accept the hearing officer's determination uh unanimously passes. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, next case. >> Next case
>> is >> I have uh health reason. Can I run to the the restroom? I'm sorry. >> So, we recess. >> Yeah. Just quick sir. Two minutes. Two minute recess, please. Okay. >> Way too many blanks.
>> Have a good night. Um, do you want to do 235 next gentleman's here for 235 and nobody's here for 231? >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's okay. >> That's my fault. I didn't attach. because I accepted what
>> he's 230. He's 235. >> You're 235, right? >> Yeah. 235est. Right. >> I copied this on both. I took it because I said when I read it and I saw it, I said, "This got to be for because it's the same
Yeah, I'm sorry. >> But that can go for both, right? >> But this one's 235. The dollar amounts are different. >> The other one is this document in >> 231, right?
>> But it wasn't. But I saw I saw it written out. So It has done. Tom, you talking about this one, right? >> Yes. I just
>> she did nothing wrong. >> She But that's besides the point. >> 800. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Next case is 235
Lexiton Avenue. Capital improvement application. >> Yes. Uh so we have the property owner present uh Mr. Lou Raldi uh and the hearing officer uh chief inspector Tom Colleen.
>> Let me hear from um if you could put the microphone on. >> Yeah. Um let me hear from from the landlord real quick. Okay. No, I don't mean real quick, but >> Chairman Dana requesting the landlord. >> Uh, Mr. Raldi, if you could just uh
place your name on the record and just spell it for us. >> Okay. This is Lou Raldi. L O U I S R I N A L D I. >> Okay. If you could just raise your uh right hand, please. Okay. Mr. Raldi, uh, do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. I see. >> Um it's just as an overview. Uh the I've owned the building uh for 15 years or so. Uh when we first uh got the
building, we did a lot of improvements on the inside. We didn't do any improvements on the outside of the building. We we so we kind of carried uh carried that. Uh so last year it came to the point that things uh you know we had
the capital to do it uh and we did the improvements uh so uh basically we we did a lot of improvements on the outside on the facade of the building the roof uh security improvements uh fire escape improvements all these other things that
we did on the outside of the building. Um and this is the the request that I'm putting through. Now, this these buildings are off the corner of Mallalerie, right? >> Yes. >> A little bit down a little bit. >> Yeah. I think my building is >> leftand side or right hand side. Going down. >> We're on the left hand side.
>> Okay. >> If you go in for Mallerie. >> Okay. Okay. Um, any questions? Anybody have? >> No. >> Thank you, sir. Can we hear from the hearing officer?
Okay, Tom, if you could just place your name on the record and spell it for us. >> Thomas Colleen. T H O M A S K I L L E N. >> Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Okay. Thank you, Tom. >> Okay. Okay.
Um just can you tell us a little bit about the um services that were provided by um >> right >> the landlord? >> Um okay. So with this building, uh there was a entire new roof was uh installed. They ripped out the old roof, put in the
new roof. Um they did all new window lentils, which are the the cement sections that are right above windows. Um they also did um uh upgrades to the fire escape uh new
security systems and there was also um pointing and cement work done to the exterior of the building. >> Okay, that's what >> which are all beneficial to the operation of the entire building >> building. Okay, he said there was security also that was done.
>> Uh yes, sec security cameras installed. >> Security cameras installed also. Okay. And uh this came up to $71,72016. Um the work was all inspected. It was, you know, it was performed as described. >> Okay.
>> Anybody have any questions? >> James, uh as discussed, we don't know, you know, the allocation of the full capital improvement wasn't provided in the file. Um yeah, that that is my fault in and
preparing with AI what should have come to you gentlemen because I don't see it here in mine. Um the room count is as described in the application on page one where there are three room there are one two three three room apartments and a
four room apartment and I'm sorry four three room and two four room apartments and the calculations um of the amount incre uh increase is the same as the applicant has requested.
Normally there was another form which I do not see in here which is our form which basically says that that's the number of rooms that were counted and the increases per room the dollar amount that form
is not in this particular file. >> Yeah. Uh if I could to uh rent rent leveling administrator uh Eric Bulwith uh that is B U L WI TH first name is E R
I C. Uh so Oh yeah, I'm sorry. >> It's a Wilson, attorney for the board. Um Eric, can you raise your right hand? Do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do.
Okay. Uh so yeah, when the base rents and the actual rents are questionable along with the increases, um we the Bureau of Rent Leveling will do a calculation. I mean, we're going to do one either way just to just to
confirm. Um but in this case, the the rent roles were submitted every year. Um there wasn't any question to uh the numbers that were applied to the application. Uh so we are not questioning the application in in that
way. Um in fact u you know I I'm talking just about the rents but and the increases. Um I I can't speak for Tom but you know he's not questioning it either. >> Okay. >> So sorry just to just I wanted to kind of put that out there. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Clear the record. >> Any That's it. >> Just one question. Uh Eric, oh Jame James Eco, just one question on uh you know just the process of how we
can go about this now. So we can accept that there is sufficient evidence based on uh Tom's work that the statutes have been met and the capital improvement should be
accepted. But uh is that all as a matter of course is that all we need to do without uh understanding how you know the allocation to each department.
So the allocation I believe is on the application, right? That was >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Uh Eric Bwith, >> but it's it's I understand what the commissioner is saying. It's it's not broken down. It's just the number of rooms and then the total amount of increase. There's a form that you're
referring to that should have been in the application that says the increase is, and I'm arbitrarily saying this, um you know, $9 $15 per room. And that form is just happens to be missing from the file, but my numbers do match the
applicant's numbers on his application. >> So again, yeah, the Eric Bolith again, uh the bureau is not questioning the uh allocation uh based on the numbers that we were provided. Um the again, if if we
did, we would have supplied that uh and it would have countered what the application is stating. Um it also makes the file a lot lighter and less paper for sure, you know. Okay. But uh again for future reference we the bureau can
definitely do that and just have that those that own calculation. >> Uh and then just just for future reference if you guys require that that's fine. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. I think we can make a motion. Right.
>> Okay. Thank you. Motion to close. Oh, >> okay. >> The board. I just wanted to know if you had any other questions or you have questions of u myself with respect to Mr. Eox your your your question as to
how to allocate or how the board should um I guess rule um based upon um not having the documentation that indicates what the allocations of rent is supposed to be. >> Yeah. My question would be,
can we since it appears from the evidence in the file and everything else that the burden that the landlord had to meet uh for section 260-5e4 has been met. So we can we can agree
make a motion that uh accepts the full uh the total sum of the capital improvement but we we can't make any comment on the allocation. >> Right. Maybe you can >> we'll just comment on the total. >> You can comment on the total and you can
maybe remand it back to the bureau for the calculation based upon your decision tonight. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Motion close the public portion. >> Have a uh motion from the chair uh to
close the public portion of this hearing. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. I think Ecock might have beat you out, so I'll have Commissioner Eco down. Uh okay. All in favor, please.
>> Okay. That was Sullivan, Hill, Eco, and uh Revo. Okay. >> Okay. Public portion is closed. >> Public portion is closed. >> Motion to adopt the hearing officer's determination. >> Okay. >> I have a motion. We have a a motion to
accept the hearing officer's recommendation uh for the total capital improvement work in the sum of 71,72016 uh as it's as the um this total sum constitutes the major capital
improvements which are defined in the rent control ordinance ordinance in section 260-5e parentheses four. So we agree on the total amount but we
need to remand back to the bureau uh for the breakdown of the allocation. >> Okay. So, there is a motion to remand the application back to the Bureau of Right leveling
um to for another for another hearing to provide you with the confirmed allocating of of the increases >> to motion a remand.
>> Yeah, let's strike the remand. Okay, I think we'll just make a motion >> to accept the hearing officer's recommendation >> that the landlord has proven that it has done capital improvement work in the total sum of 71,7206
and this total sum is in accordance with the rent control ordinance in section 260-5e parentheses 4 >> uh Sorry, I'm just getting
>> do we if we could read that into the record if necessary. >> So, okay. So 260-5e4 uh which states major major capital improvements shall consist of a substantial change in the housing accommodation such as would materially
increase the rent value in a normal market and which consists of capital improvements to buildingwide operating systems including but not limited to items such as complete plumbing electrical replacement of the entire building or a new roof. Major capital improvements shall also include complete
kitchen bathroom replacements for an individual apartment unit. So you're we're the motion is to accept the hearing officer's determin >> recommendation. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh do I and that's from uh that
motion is from Commissioner Ecock. Do I have a second? >> Have a second. >> Second Sullivan Johnson. >> Okay. I have a second from Vice Chair Sullivan Johnson. We're gonna have a roll call. Okay. Roll call to accept the motion uh for
the motion to accept the hearing officer's recommendation. Chair Chairman Dan Hill. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Svin C. Johnson III. >> Yes. I just if you could into the microphone.
>> Yes. >> Commissioner James Ecock. >> Yes. >> And Commissioner Philip Revo. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh the motion passes unanimously.
Uh four four to none. Uh so we'll call the next case. >> Um the next case 231 is not here. >> Correct. No one has appeared for uh 231 uh tenants or property owner.
>> Would you like to uh speak to the hearing officer? >> Um yes. >> Okay. >> Tom, you're still under oath. Thomas Colleen. >> Yes. 231 Lexington Avenue, Capital Improvement.
>> Uh this particular building um was just a roof replacement. >> Okay. >> Um which uh was inspected and verified. Um at the hearing for this particular u building uh no tenants uh came to object
to the increase. Um, and there is the form with the breakdown per room, uh, which was missing in the other application where it comes out to $9 per room per apartment, uh, for a total of, uh,
>> the, uh, the onebedrooms are um, I'm sorry, the three bedrooms are 27 and the uh, four bedrooms are 36 increase. >> That's the form that was missing from the other application. Okay. Any questions?
>> Nope. >> Okay. Motion to close. >> I have a motion to close from Chairman Danon Hill. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Second by James E. Commissioner
James Ecock to close the public portion of the hearing. Uh, may I have a unanim vote by stating I >> I >> I. Okay, that was uh Commissioner Sullivan, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Ecock, and Commissioner
Revo. Okay. >> Okay. Motion to accept the hearing officers um recommendation for 231 Lexon Avenue Capital Improvement. >> Okay. I have a motion from Chairman Hill
to accept >> Sorry. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. the amount um for threebedroom $9. I'm sorry. Wait, wait, wait, wait. >> Want to do the total? >> The total. I don't have the the total
>> the total take. >> One second. We'll be >> 22,000. It's >> 20 >> 22,500. >> Okay. In summary to to accept the total major capital improvement of 22,500
be accepted depreciated over 10 years and allocated to each apartment based on the number of rooms in the apartment as set forth on the attached schedule. >> Okay. So, I have a motion from Chairman Hill to accept the hearing officer's uh
recommendation based on the um uh improvement amount of $22,500 to be allocated uh to each unit per room for the next 10 years as a major capital
improvement. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> I'm going to give it to Eco again, Commissioner. I have a second from uh Commissioner Ecock. We're have going to have a roll call now to accept the hearing officer's recommendation. Chairman Dan Hill.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Uh Vice Chairman Sullivan C. Johnson III. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Commissioner James Eco. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Philip Revo. >> Yes. >> Okay. That uh motion passes uh
unanimously. Uh, do I have a motion to uh adjourn? >> Motion to adjurnn tonight's meeting. >> Okay, I have a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting from Chairman Hill. Uh, do I have a second? >> Seconded. Yeah. At 7:50 p.m. >> Sure.
>> Okay. Seconded. And we we have marked the time for the record. Uh, all in favor? >> I >> I Okay. All commissioners uh rule in favor. Vice Chair Sullivan Johnson, Chairman uh Dan Hill, uh Commissioner
James Ecock, and uh Commissioner uh Philip Revo. Thank you. Good night. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thanks, Tom. >> I'm sorry about that. >> Oh, that's all right. Bill, >> make sure we go for >> Welcome aboard. Yeah, it was fun. >> Welcome aboard. No problem.
>> No problem, Tom. Yeah, that's good. >> Mr. The eco is not going to, you know.