Building and Tenant Were Rent Stabilized

Tenant asked the DHCR to determine whether she was rent stabilized. HPD records indicated that the building had five apartments. But tenant claimed that the three-story building contained at least seven apartments. The DRA ruled for tenant after landlord failed to respond to tenant's application and DHCR inspection showed that the building contained more than six apartments.

Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that the DRA's order was the result of fraud, illegality, and an irregularity in a vital matter. First, landlord argued that the complainant wasn't a legal tenant and had no standing to seek relief from the DHCR. The legal tenant was Catholic Charities Neighborhood Services and the complainant was an occupant who didn't pay rent directly to landlord. Landlord said it gave the complainant a lease in her own name only so she could open utility accounts. Landlord also claimed that it didn't answer the DRA's notice of the complaint because Catholic Charities told him they would handle the response. Tenant argued that she had been signing leases with landlord since 2009 notwithstanding a rent-subsidy agreement she had with Catholic Charities. The DHCR again noted that the building contained seven apartments, that landlord's reliance on Catholic Charities was no excuse for not answering tenant's complaint, that landlord had collected rent from complainant, and that landlord had given her at least two leases that contained no provision stating that the lease was subordinate to any lease with Catholic Charities.

Wilson: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. AT110060RO (12/3/13) [3-pg. doc.]