Application Granted After Landlord Corrected Conditions Causing Rent Reduction

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of new windows. At the time, two DHCR rent reduction orders were in effect building wide. While its MCI application was pending, landlord filed applications to restore rent. The DRA restored rents, effective Feb. 1, 1995, for rent-controlled tenants and Dec. 1, 1995, for rent-stabilized tenants. The DRA later granted landlord's MCI application, making rent hikes effective Dec. 1, 1995, for rent-stabilized tenants and July 1, 1996, for rent-controlled tenants. Tenants appealed, claiming that landlord wasn't eligible to apply for MCI rent hikes because the rent reduction orders were in effect at the time of the application. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the MCI hikes. Landlord then appealed. The DHCR took the case back for reconsideration and ruled for landlord. Tenants then appealed, claiming that the DHCR violated its own Policy Statement 90-8. The court ruled against tenants. The Policy Statement states that the DHCR won't grant an MCI rent hike if, before granting the rent hike, landlord isn't maintaining all required services or if there are current, immediately hazardous violations. But the Policy Statement also permits the DHCR to grant rent hikes on the condition that reduced services be restored within a reasonable time. In this case, there were no longer any rent reduction orders in effect when the DHCR ruled for landlord on its MCI application. The DHCR acted reasonably within its discretion.

Bobadilla v. DHCR: NYLJ, 7/7/04, p. 19, col. 3 (Sup. Ct. Queens; Hart, J)