DHCR Must Reconsider Decisions on Resurfacing Work

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on resurfacing a building’s exterior brick walls. The DHCR’s Rent Administrator ruled against landlord, finding that the useful life of prior work hadn’t expired and landlord hadn’t obtained a waiver from the DHCR. The DRA later granted landlord’s request for reconsideration in part and approved some MCI increase. Landlord and tenants each filed PARs. The DHCR ruled against tenants but ruled for landlord in part, finding that the DRA had improperly disallowed some of the claimed exterior resurfacing costs. Landlord and tenants then filed Article 78 appeals, each claiming that the DHCR’s decision was unreasonable. The court annulled the DHCR’s decision to grant reconsideration of the resurfacing issue, finding that landlord had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Landlord appealed again.

The appeals court ruled that even though landlord filed a request for reconsideration rather than a PAR against the 2009 order, it later filed a timely PAR from the 2013 order that was the subject of the Article 78 appeal. The case was sent back to the DHCR to resolve discrepancies between the prior orders that were so inconsistent and unclear that they constituted an irregularity in a vital matter.

60 East 12th Street Tenants’ Association v. DHCR: 2015 NY Slip Op 09599, 2015 WL 9465346 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 12/29/15; Gonzalez, PJ, Sweeny, Renwick, Saxe, Feinman, JJ)