"C" Violations Issued After MCI Application Filing Didn't Bar MCI Rent Hike

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing and waterproofing of a building facade, as well as installation of hallway/lobby windows. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed. Tenants claimed that there were immediately hazardous violations on record for the building at the time the DRA's order was issued. They also claimed that the pointing and waterproofing was defective because it wasn't done in all areas where it was needed. Tenants also argued that changes to Rent Stabilization Law provisions on MCIs made in the HSTPA should be applied to this case.

The DHCR ruled against tenants. The "C" violations in question were issued after landlord's MCI application was filed. The application was subject to Rent Stabilization Code amendments issued in 2014 that stated that an MCI increase couldn't be granted if immediately hazardous violations were on record "as of the date of [the MCI] application." So, the later-issued violations in this case didn't bar the MCI increase. As to the HSTPA, the law did make some changes to the collectibilty rate of MCI increases where applications were granted between June 16, 2012, and June 16, 2019. Otherwise, the language of the HSTPA failed to expressly state that the act applied to pending MCI appeals. The absence of such express statements concerning pending MCI appeals indicated that the HSTPA wasn't intended to apply to these cases. DHCR inspection also showed that pointing had been done in a workmanlike manner on all exposed sides of the building where it was needed, and that there were no gaping holes or cracks visible on any side of the building at the time of inspection. 

Various Tenants of 39-29 58th Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. GS110022RT (1/21/22)[2-pg. document]