DHCR Can't Consider Tenants' Claim of Substandard Ceiling Height

LVT Number: #30688

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of rent overcharge. The DRA ruled against tenant, finding no rent overcharge. Tenant appealed, and the DHCR denied his PAR. Tenant then filed an Article 78 court appeal, claiming that the DHCR's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. Tenant and the DHCR agreed to send the case back for further consideration.

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of rent overcharge. The DRA ruled against tenant, finding no rent overcharge. Tenant appealed, and the DHCR denied his PAR. Tenant then filed an Article 78 court appeal, claiming that the DHCR's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. Tenant and the DHCR agreed to send the case back for further consideration.

When the DRA and DHCR decided tenant's case, a four-year lookback period was in effect. But the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) now applied a six-year lookback period to pending cases. So the DHCR ruled that the case should go back to the DRA for application of the six-year statute of limitations. The DHCR noted that tenants' claims involving their disability rent increase exemption (DRIE) should be made to the NYC Dept. of Finance. And tenant's claim that their top-floor one-bedroom apartment contained a slanted ceiling with a substandard height of six to seven feet wasn't an issue that the DHCR was authorized by law to address.

Quinan: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. HQ410005RP (1/7/20) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

HQ410005RP.pdf414.47 KB