Community Room Was Required Service

Rent-stabilized tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services after landlord closed a community room previously provided to tenants. The DHCR ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord filed an Article 78 appeal, claiming that the DHCR's decision was unreasonable. The court and appeals court ruled against landlord. A community room was provided to tenants for parties and other gatherings while the building was previously subject to the Mitchell-Lama program. When the building later became rent stabilized, the community room became a required service. Landlord claimed that it had closed the community room for security reasons, but submitted no further facts to the DRA to support its claim. Later, in its PAR, landlord claimed that it had merely changed the locks to prevent certain tenants from using the room for commercial purposes. The DHCR reasonably rejected this claim since it wasn't raised before the DRA and landlord offered no explanation for why it couldn't do so.

Croes Nest Realty v. DHCR: NYLJ, 2/6/12, p. 18, col. 1 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Gonzalez, PJ, Saxe, Acosta, Freedman, JJ)