Landlord appeals from an order and final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County, entered July 16, 2002 after trial (Eileen Rakower, J.) which dismissed the petition in commercial nonpayment summary proceedings.

PER CURIAM:

Order and final judgment entered July 16, 2002 (Eileen Rakower, J.) affirmed, with $25 costs.

Tenant operates a bar/restaurant in the Chelsea Piers complex. At issue in this nonpayment proceeding are certain items of additional rent sought by landlord pursuant to the parties' sublease agreement; the base rent is not in dispute. After trial, Civil Court granted landlord recovery for separately metered water and electricity charges, as well as for telephone charges, but disallowed its claims for "common operating expenses", gas charges, and expenses for bathroom maintenance.

We affirm. While landlord's computer generated summary of tenant's account should have been admitted into evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule (see, CPLR 4518; Ed Guth Realty, Inc. v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440, 451), any error in this regard [*2]was not prejudicial. Under section 12B of the sublease, "common operating expenses" are defined as "the total costs and expenses incurred directly" in operating the leased premises and common areas. Landlord failed to establish the actual costs incurred, acknowledging at trial that the entries in the rent ledger for these charges were estimates. Landlord's argument that it was too onerous to admit the voluminous back-up documents available in the courtroom overlooks that, at the very least, samples or summaries could have been offered to demonstrate the actual monthly common operating charges (see, Herbert H. Post & Co. v Bitterman, Inc., 219 AD2d 214, 228). Tenant's agreement to pay common charges in a February 1999 stipulation in settlement of a prior proceeding does not mean that tenant acquiesced in landlord's billing methodology, particularly since the stipulation recited that it was without prejudice to the determination of the correct amount of future rent due.

The claim for gas charges was properly dismissed, as the sublease required that landlord install a separate meter to measure tenant's actual usage (section 12A[iii]). Concededly, this was not done. With respect to the $500 monthly bathroom maintenance charge, landlord failed to establish the actual cost or explain the derivation of this
charge.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.