DHCR Improperly Ordered Rent Reduction for Exempt Building

LVT Number: #27750

Tenants complained to the DHCR of a reduction in building-wide services. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed and won. Landlord claimed that the building wasn't subject to rent stabilization because the building was a cooperative created under Article 11 of the Private Housing Finance Law and New York Business Corporation Law. The DRA also failed to name the cooperative corporation as the owner in the case and therefore violated its due process rights. Landlord submitted a copy of HPD's certificate of approval and consent to the co-op formation.

Tenants complained to the DHCR of a reduction in building-wide services. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed and won. Landlord claimed that the building wasn't subject to rent stabilization because the building was a cooperative created under Article 11 of the Private Housing Finance Law and New York Business Corporation Law. The DRA also failed to name the cooperative corporation as the owner in the case and therefore violated its due process rights. Landlord submitted a copy of HPD's certificate of approval and consent to the co-op formation. Although landlord didn't raise these facts before the DRA, the DHCR ruled for landlord because the DRA lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the building. The building was exempt from rent stabilization as found in Rent Stabilization Law Section 26-504.

1165 Fulton Ave. HDFC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. EN630036RO (4/13/17) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

EN630036RO.pdf432.57 KB