2015 NY Slip Op 50089

Citation: 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Source: Official source
Original Source: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_50089.htm ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,754 chars

583 (1st Dep't 1990) ("Ansonia II"); See RSL § 26-501; 8200
Realty Corp. v. Lindsay, 27 NY2d 124 (1970)." In conclusion, the High Court found
that "the policies of DHCR both with respect to the merger of the increases into the
stabilized rent, as well as allowing temporary retroactive rent increases to recover arrears,
are fully supported by judicial precedent, the statute itself and the legislative
history".

If the High Court rejected this position for residential tenants, this Court
rejects the Respondent's claim of inequity in the Accountant's calculation which allowed
for the compounding of the increases in the yearly fixed rent. As described above and
here, Respondent's argument that the landlord should not be entitled to compound the
increase falls on deaf ears. Were this Court to adopt the Respondent's position here, the
Petitioners, mainly Fred Brenner, would be deprived of the right to recoup his monetary
investments in the subject property from the inception of his lease with right to purchase
dated back to December 8, 1980.

With equal emphasis, but for the annual increases in the rent, there would be
no profit (emphasis added). The owner would be deprived of the
necessary increases in revenue to maintain the property. Moreover, in this case, Fred
Brenner would not have sufficient income from the property to keep up with the rate of
inflation or pay ordinary expenses including but not limited to real estate taxes, water and
sewer and/or insurance. Fred Brenner did not invest nearly his entire working life to yield
some return on his investment.

Of equal significance, the Petitioner, Fred Brenner, should not be deprived
of his ability to make a profit from the subject property particularly because of his initial