Middletown Fair Rent Commission Meeting - April 22, 2026: New Complaints, Bylaws, and Multiple Hearings
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Middletown Fair Rent Commission Meeting - April 22, 2026
The Fair Rent Commission held its regular meeting on Wednesday, April 22, 2026, beginning at approximately 7:00 PM and adjourning at 10:00 PM. The agenda included jurisdictional review of four new complaints, approval of bylaws amendments, a discussion on changing the appeal time period, and hearings on three pending matters: a compliance hearing for Rivera, a compliance hearing and motion for reconsideration for Barnaby, and new complaints from De Leon and Lynch. The commission voted on multiple motions and ordered further settlement discussions in one case.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes – The minutes from the February 11, 2026 regular meeting were approved unanimously.
- Correspondence – None.
New Complaints and Jurisdictional Review
Four complaints were reviewed for jurisdictional acceptance:
- Madison Humphrey vs. Caravetta – Alleged excessive rent increase from $1,460/month to $1,635/month with inadequate notice. Motion to accept jurisdiction passed unanimously.
- Bruntley and Mally vs. Center Realty (309 South Main Street) – Alleged excessive rent of $1,850/month, repair issues, health code and safety violations. Motion to accept jurisdiction passed unanimously.
- Terrence Dowdy vs. Caravetta – Alleged excessive rent increase from $1,382/month to $1,532/month, and elevator/storage issues. Motion to accept jurisdiction passed unanimously.
- Scott Crooks vs. Ryan Newport / Provision Property Management – Tenant had moved out and no retaliation was alleged. The commission voted to table the matter (motion passed) rather than dismiss, to allow time for any further developments.
Bylaws Amendment
- The commission approved technical changes replacing the word "mediation" with "settlement discussion" in three places (pages 8 and 11). Additionally, an amendment was adopted to correct two typos in Section 7.5.1.2 by removing the word "where" before "claims of law" and inserting "that" after "hearing". The amended bylaws were accepted by unanimous vote.
Discussion: Appeal Time Period
- Staff presented research showing that other municipalities use appeal periods ranging from 10 to 30 days. Commissioners discussed shortening the current 30‑day period to either 20 or 15 days to provide finality earlier and ensure the commission knows of any appeal before the next meeting. Any change requires action by the Common Council. The discussion was tabled to a future meeting; no vote was taken.
Hearings
Rivera Compliance Hearing
- Case: Myrna Rivera vs. Caravetta. The commission had previously reduced the rent to $25/month due to extensive repairs needed. Landlord representative Ms. Cran testified that all ordered repairs were completed, including elevator repair, new windows, flooring, and health/fire code inspections. Tenant Ms. Rivera acknowledged many repairs but raised concerns about her high electric bills (e.g., $800/month) and a $100 late fee. Landlord agreed to remove late fees and assist with the utility issue. The commission found that the landlord had complied with the prior orders and voted to restore the rent to its previous level of $1,150 per month. The decision will be effective upon issuance.
Barnaby Compliance Hearing & Motion for Reconsideration
- Case: Barnaby (tenant) vs. Cosell (landlord, represented by Attorney Gottley). Attorney Gottley filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the commission lacked authority, that the tenant had no notice of maintenance issues being adjudicated, that CPI data was improperly used, and that the commission acted as a code enforcement body. Commissioner Fennell responded that the complaint had included maintenance issues and that CPI is a judicially noticeable fact. Attorney Gottley moved to disqualify Commissioner Fennell, citing past representation of tenants. The commission did not rule on the motion for reconsideration that evening. Instead, the commission agreed to follow up with the city health department regarding an inspection of the property and will schedule a future compliance hearing.
De Leon Hearing (Eddie De Leon vs. Monarca Properties)
- Case: Tenant Eddie De Leon alleged that landlord Monarca Properties proposed an excessive rent increase (from $900 to $1,400) and failed to make repairs. The landlord’s representative, Mr. Bernarca, testified that the proposed increase was withdrawn after a prior retaliation hearing, and that all code violations had been resolved and inspected. Both parties agreed that $900/month is a fair rent. The commission determined that the rent of $900 is not excessive under the circumstances, citing evidence that the conditions had been made reasonably livable (ordinance factor six) and that a prior code enforcement action had been closed. Motion passed; rent remains $900.
Lynch Hearing (Lynch vs. Carabetta)
- Case: Tenant Ms. Lynch filed a complaint regarding a rent increase from $1,200 to $1,490 and multiple maintenance issues (mold/mildew, flaking floors, window screens, inadequate heat, snow removal). Landlord attorney Carabetta acknowledged the issues and stated that a plan was in place to address them, but access to the unit had been limited due to the tenant’s work schedule (available only after 3 PM, while maintenance works until 4 PM). The tenant expressed concerns about allowing workers in when she is not present. After deliberation, the commission voted to table its decision and refer the parties to an informal settlement discussion with the commission’s attorney to establish a mutually agreeable timeline for repairs. A follow‑up conference was scheduled for the following week. The commission noted that if no schedule is agreed, the matter may return for a final decision.
Key Outcomes
- Jurisdiction accepted on three new complaints; one tabled.
- Bylaws amended to reflect “settlement discussion” and fix typos.
- Appeal time discussion tabled; staff to research Common Council procedure for proposing a change.
- Rivera compliance: rent restored to $1,150/month; landlord found compliant.
- Barnaby motion for reconsideration: not decided; health department inspection to be pursued; future compliance hearing to be scheduled.
- De Leon: rent of $900/month declared fair and not excessive.
- Lynch: deliberations tabled; parties ordered to participate in informal settlement discussion to schedule repairs. The commission will revisit if no agreement is reached.
Meeting Transcript
I didn't start the recording, but it's recorded now. Could you just call the order? Yeah. On the meetings that we're going to send out three. We have on the agenda is public comment. Anybody from the public would like to speak. I'm seeing none, so I'll vote public comment. Next, we have the approval of minutes from our February 11th, 2026 regular meeting. We have a motion to approve those minutes. Second. Any discussion in favor? Any stain? The motion passes. Next, do we have any correspondence? No, no correspondence outside of uh the matters that are to be covered. So the report on new complaints and jurisdictional review. Correct. I'll turn to that briefly. So we're in a new matter. Um Humphrey, uh, which is related. This is uh Madison Humphrey, which is related to uh to caravetta property on that particular matter. Um their allegations are related to an excessive rent complaint um going from one 460 dollars a month to 1635 dollars a month, um and indicating that there was um a notice you know in January of a hundred and forty-five dollar increase effective in 10 days, and and in essence they're they're just indicating they feel that those that the rent increase is excessive, and I think they're also claiming that they did not get appropriate notice of the of the rent food. That's one matter. Um do you want to do these individuals? I think um I think we could do it once again, or okay. Well, except for except possibly for the last, I think maybe we should go individually. We could do a beneficiary. So do we have a motion to hear the on free matter? Or accept jurisdiction, it's an accept jurisdiction on the complaint. Second any discussion in favor, uh the opposer abstain will accept jurisdiction on that complaint. Uh we have a matter called Bruntley and Mally uh versus center realty. Uh that is a uh also I believe a that is uh that is center realty and up realty, I think is the is the uh this is 309 South Main Street. So I think that is that one of your clients, Mr. Gottley. It is um in any event, uh the allegations check off excessive rent issues, repair issues, and health code and safety violations. Um they talk about uh uh they talk about how they want to that the landlord wants to increase to a rental charge of 1850 dollars, or I'm sorry, they say there's no increase now, but that they believe the rental charge of 1850 per month is excessive. Uh they talk about excessive noise from surrounding apartments. Um they talk about jumping through a group uh in terms of uh some kind of electricity or metering issue, um talk about ceilings to be cleaned and repaired, um uh having a wrong breaker and some repair issues with respect to that. Um moisture in terms of multiple leaks in some rooms, a sag and ceiling, and what the what is alleged to be mold uh so that and that is ultimately was not originally signed by both tenants, but it is now signed by both tenants. So we have a motion to accept jurisdiction on that one. Second, any discussion? All in favor, um we accept jurisdiction on that complaint. So the quick question. So the commission's already set an answer date on that one. How could it set an answer date if it hasn't been accepted by the commission yet? We send out a notice if it were to be dismissed, and so would be uh set up. So what because you know the the ordinance uh requires that once a complaint is received and a notice be issued. So that doesn't mean that it's necessarily been uh accepted for jurisdiction, but this is our first opportunity to do jurisdictional review, so that's what we could. But again, if it were to be dismissed, it would have you know we would have heard here that they weren't gonna take it. So before jurisdiction, so before jurisdiction is found by the commission through a vote, there's an arbitrary answer date set without there being any jurisdiction.
openpublica.com