Fair Rent Commission

MINUTES FAIR RENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING (HYBRID) OF OCTOBER 9, 2024 Present: Commissioner/Chair Rakim Grant; Commissioner/Vice Chair Caitlin Duffy; Commissioner Robert Rosenthal; Commissioner Sal Calvo; Commissioner Robert Kronenberger. Staff: Atty. Philip G. Kent, as outside counsel for the Commission Public: Atty. Darrell Fennell; Atty. Ian Gottlieb; Up Realty employee, Ms. Torres; Vincent Maruffi; Carmine Vicenzo; Alagar Venkataswamy (remote); Kenny M. (remote) 1. Call to Order: Commissioner / Chair Grant called the Meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. 2. Public Comment: Commissioner / Chair Grant called for public comment with no response. 3. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Calvo made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the August 14, 2024 Regular Meeting. Commissioner/Vice Chair Duffy seconded the motion and the motion passed without further discussion. 4. Correspondence Atty. Kent reported on correspondence under Old Business. 5. New Business A. Discussion and/or vote re additional revisions of Bylaws The Chair tabled this agenda item for a future meeting. B. Discussion re various issues 1. Informing community re FRC – Flyer Commissioner/Chair Grant reported that flyer was not complete and asked for others to take up the issue. Commissioner Rosenthal agreed to take over and to work on distribution of the flyer based on what he previously created and the list of potential places to post the flyer. The Commissioners present agreed.  2. Letter to Mayor re FRC suggestions The Chair tabled this agenda item for a future meeting. It was discussed that by October or November this issue may be ready for further discussion. 3. Other/General The Chair called for discussion on other issues but none were raised. C. Discussion of pending complaints, mediation, answer dates and scheduling Hearings 1. Muhammad complaint status Atty. Kent reported that this matter was withdrawn and that tenant moved out. 2. Gardner complaint status Atty. Kent reported that this matter was withdrawn upon evidence being presented to confirm the reported conservator’s status. 3. Yeboah complaint status Atty. Kent reported that the complaint will be scheduled for hearing in November 2024. 4. Schoffstall / Kamp-Wilson complaint status Atty. Kent reported that this complaint was withdrawn by the tenants. 5. Field complaint status Atty. Kent reported that this complaint was received regarding a DOH congregate housing unit / tenant, but remains under review due to a possible jurisdictional issue. 6. Andrews / Bisson complaint status Atty. Kent reported that the complaint was received, and that notice issued with an answer date of August 27, 2024. Atty. Gottlieb, landlord’s counsel, raised an issue that there is no jurisdiction because the tenants filed a code enforcement complaint in housing court with a hearing on November 4, 2024. Atty. Gottlieb will be subpoenaing several witnesses from Middletown’s health department and police department. Atty. Kent invited Atty. Gottlieb to submit a written objection to jurisdiction. 7. Gallagher complaint status Atty. Kent reported that this new complaint was received and notice sent with an answer date of October 23, 2024. 6. Old Business A. Hearing / deliberations / decision re Fennell complaint Atty. Kent read primary elements of the proposed Stipulated Order into the record including a remittance of $500.00, a rent increase of $50.00 per month and that the order remains in 2 effect until September 2025. Counsel for both parties confirmed the agreement. Commissioner / Chair Grant made a MOTION to accept the Stipulated Order as written, which Commissioner Calvo seconded. The Motion was unanimously approved. The parties and Chair signed the order. B. Guidance re Maruffi door issue Atty. Kent reported that while the window is fixed, which Mr. Maruffi confirmed, the door is not. Atty. Kent reviewed various email communications reflecting a request for inspection, to which Atty. Fennell had objected, and to which landlord’s representative conceded the door was not fixed on August 28, 2024. Atty. Gottlieb wrote on September 9, 2024, stating the door had been fixed and submitting a video purported to show same. Mr. Maruffi made a “counter-video” to demonstrate deficiencies in the condition of the door. Atty. Gottlieb and Atty. Fennell presented their opposing views on behalf of their clients on how to handle the door issue. Atty. Gottlieb argued the door was adequately repaired and did lock at that time, but that someone broke the door again. Atty. Fennell argued the door was never adequately repaired because it does not lock or act as a security door as intended and offered Mr. Maruffi’s video as further evidence. Atty. Kent played both videos for the Commissioners. The Commissioners discussed the videos and the issues presented. Ms. Torres answered a few questions informally but was unsure why the door was not locking at the time of landlord’s video. Mr. Maruffi offered additional comments concerning the keys to open the door and requested, along with Atty. Fennell, that the buzzer system be repaired as well. The Commissioners agreed that the door needs to lock to comply with the order and pass inspection. The Commissioners after discussion recommended that the landlord repair the buzzer system but declined to amend their order with respect to the buzzer system for the door, as that was not part of the original decision. Commissioner Calvo agreed to make himself available to inspect at the time of the repair and Atty. Kent was tasked to connect Atty. Gottlieb, Atty. Fennell and Commissioner Calvo to arrange for a quick inspection. Atty. Gottlieb also agreed that Kosel Equity would correct erroneous rent charges. C. Hearing re Venkataswamy motion Atty. Kent reported upon and distributed a motion filed by Mr. Venkataswamy seeking that a fine be imposed on the landlord Kosel Equity for violating the Commission’s decision dated May 15, 2024, by failing to appropriately remit funds to Mr. Venkataswamy in that the landlord used his own security deposit to fund the ordered remittance of $450.00. Atty. Kent advised that the Commission had jurisdiction to hear this matter under Ordinance § 14-80. Atty. Fennell presented argument and evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that the remittance made was funded from Mr. Venkataswamy’s security deposit during the time that Mr. Venkataswamy remained a tenant and only after complaining about this via the instant motion did Kosel Equity make Mr. Venkataswamy whole. Atty. Gottlieb interjected and objected to the proceeding going forward. Atty. Gottlieb moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction by arguing that this matter entirely involved the landlord’s actions with respect to a security deposit, over which this Commission lacks jurisdiction and which should be addressed only in housing court. Atty. Fennell argued that the Commission has jurisdiction because the remittance order was violated under Ordinance § 14-80 with respect to demanding, accepting or receiving funds from the tenant above the required rent. The 3 Commissioners discussed the jurisdictional issue at length, with Commissioners Kronenberger and Calvo stating that if Mr. Venkataswamy was made whole they did not feel a need for the Commission to address this matter. Generally, Commissioners Grant, Duffy and Rosenthal expressed that the Commission does have jurisdiction where compliance with the order was at issue. The Commissioners also discussed whether there was intent involved, but it was noted that intent is not required under the terms of Ordinance § 14-80. Commissioner Rosenthal made a MOTION to deny the motion to dismiss, which Commissioner / Chair Grant seconded. Commissioners Grant, Duffy and Rosenthal voted in favor of denying the motion to dismiss. Commissioners Kronenberger and Calvo voted against denying the motion to dismiss. Motion carried (3-2) in favor of denying Atty. Gottlieb’s oral motion to dismiss. Atty. Fennell continued his presentation of argument and evidence with 11 exhibits with occasional objections from Atty. Gottlieb as of record. Atty. Fennell asked that a fine be imposed for a period from August 6, 2024, to September 17, 2024 (42 days). Atty. Fennell also fielded questions from the Commission concerning factual issues. Atty. Gottlieb argued that Kosel Equity complied with the order by sending him $450 within 30 days, without regard to the landlord’s source of the funds from the tenant’s own security deposit, and that this Commission has no jurisdiction. The Commissioners then deliberated. Commissioner / Chair Grant and Duffy stated that the evidence showed a violation of the Commission’s order. Commissioner Kronenberger offered that he could not support a finding of violation because he believed there was speculation occurring in how the money was handled. Commissioner Rosenthal agreed that the tenant was made whole, but did not agree that there was speculation and that clearly the remittance was paid out from the tenant’s security deposit. Commissioner Kronenberger and Rosenthal agreed that there may not have been any intent. Commissioner / Chair Grant reminded that there is no requirement of intent. Commissioner / Chair Grant proposed making a finding of violation. Commissioner /Vice Chair Duffy agreed and worried about people ignoring the orders of the Commission. Commissioner / Chair Grant agreed. Commissioner / Chair Grant made a MOTION to find that there was a violation of Ordinance § 14-80 because the landlord demanded, accepted or received funds in excess of the rent when the landlord took funds from the tenant’s security deposit to satisfy the Commission’s remittance order. Commissioner Rosenthal seconded the motion. Commissioners Grant, Duffy and Rosenthal voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Kronenberger and Calvo voted against the motion. Motion carried (3-2) in favor of finding the landlord violated Ordinance § 14-80 as stated. Commissioner / Chair Grant made a MOTION to find that the duration of the violation ran from August 15, 2024, to September 12, 2024. Commissioner Rosenthal seconded the motion. Commissioners Grant, Duffy and Rosenthal voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Kronenberger and Calvo voted against the motion. Motion carried (3-2) in favor of finding the duration as stated. The Commissioners discussed levying a fine. Commissioner / Chair Grant made a MOTION to fine the landlord in the sum of $100.00. Commissioner Rosenthal seconded the motion. Commissioners Grant, Duffy and Rosenthal voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Kronenberger and Calvo voted against the motion. Motion carried (3-2) in favor of the fine in the 4 sum of $100.00. The Commissioners discussed to whom the fine would be paid. Commissioner / Chair Grant made a MOTION that the fine be paid to the tenant, which Commissioner / Vice Chair Duffy seconded. Commissioners Grant and Duffy voted in favor, but Commissioner Rosenthal abstained. Commissioner / Chair Grant then tabled the matter in favor of Atty. Kent determining whether there are any rules about to whom such a fine is paid. D. Hearing / deliberations / decision re Vicenzo complaint This matter was taken out of order prior to the Maruffi and Venkataswamy matters above as the parties with counsel made an agreement off the record while waiting to be heard. The terms of the Stipulated Order are similar to that of the Fennell matter above, without a remittance, but with a $50.00 rent increase beginning November 2024, and the order remaining in effect until October 2025. Commissioner / Chair Grant made a MOTION to accept the Stipulated Order as proposed, which Commissioner Calvo seconded. The Motion was unanimously approved. The parties and the Chair shall execute the formal order and circulate same to the parties’ counsel. 7. Executive Session, if needed Not applicable. 8. Adjournment: Commissioner Kronenberger made a MOTION to adjourn, and Commissioner Calvo seconded the motion, which passed unanimously without further discussion. The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. 5