DHCR Needn't Notify Landlord of Outstanding HPD Violations

September 30, 2002

LVT Number: 16140

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements. The DRA ruled against landlord because there were outstanding class ''C'' hazardous violations against the building. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DRA should have notified it that tenants had submitted the HPD violation report and given landlord a chance to respond. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord was previously notified by the DRA of the violations and didn't contest their existence. Tenants' submission to the DRA concerning these violations merely confirmed what was already in the DRA's record.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements. The DRA ruled against landlord because there were outstanding class ''C'' hazardous violations against the building. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DRA should have notified it that tenants had submitted the HPD violation report and given landlord a chance to respond. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord was previously notified by the DRA of the violations and didn't contest their existence. Tenants' submission to the DRA concerning these violations merely confirmed what was already in the DRA's record. The DRA didn't have to notify landlord of tenant's submission, since it wasn't new evidence.

134-14 Franklin Ave.: DHCR Admin. Rev. Dckt. No. OI130016RO (9/19/02) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

OI130016RO.pdf196.99 KB

Topics

More like this