DHCR Must Raise Rent-Controlled Rent Based on Unique or Peculiar Circumstances

(Decision submitted by Paul N. Gruber of the Manhattan law firm of Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., who represented the landlord.)

Landlord purchased a four-unit apartment building in 2000. Prior landlord had owned the building since 1941, and lived in one unit while family members lived in the other apartments. Prior landlord's niece and her husband lived as tenants in one apartment from 1961 until their deaths in 2008 and paid $125 per month in rent during that whole time. Their son, who had lived with tenants since 1983, remained in the apartment and claimed succession rights. The DHCR had no rent control records on file for the apartment, so landlord asked the DHCR in 2010 to set a maximum rent for the apartment while taking into account unique and peculiar circumstances. The DHCR ruled that the maximum rent was $125. Landlord filed an Article 78 appeal, claiming that the DHCR's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable.

The court and appeals court ruled for landlord. Landlord and prior landlord's failure to seek rent increases since 1961 due to prior landlord's personal relationship with tenants was a unique or peculiar circumstance warranting an appropriate adjustment of the maximum rent. The case was sent back to the DHCR to recompute the present date maximum collectible rent (MCR).

Migliaccio v. DHCR: 161 A.D.3d 747, 2018 NY Slip Op 03132 (App. Div. 2 Dept.; 5/2/18; Chambers, JP, Roman, Miller, Maltese, Duffy, JJ)