DHCR Properly Found That Tenant's Apartment Had Been Vacancy Deregulated Before April 1, 1997

Tenant complained to the DHCR of rent overcharge and improper deregulation of his apartment at the Chelsea Hotel. The DHCR ruled against tenant, who then filed an Article 78 court appeal of the agency's decision. The court ruled against tenant. The DHCR's decision was reasonable, and was not arbitrary and capricious. The DHCR found that the apartment wasn't rent stabilized, because the unit became vacant prior to Oct. 1, 1994, with a legal rent of $2,000. This triggered vacancy-deregulation status under the Rent Regulatory Reform Act of 1993 (RRRA) and the Rent Stabilization Code. The DHCR also argued that tenant was barred from raising the issue of claimed fraud because it didn't raise this claim before the DRA in its initial complaint to the DHCR. The DHCR also didn't agree with tenant's argument that rents prior to 1994 should be reviewed based on an outdated operational bulletin circulated by the DHCR between the passage of the RRRA and the issuance of RSC regulations in 1994. The DHCR ruled that the regulations, not the bulletin, controlled. The court noted that there was no dispute that the unit was vacant sometime between April 1, 1994, and March 31, 1997, and that tenant paid $2,000 per month when he moved in. And tenant had asked the DHCR to roll his rent back to $2,000. So, the DHCR's decision was rational. 

DeCock v. DHCR: Index No. 160585/2022, 2023 NY Slip Op 30897(U)(Sup. Ct. NY; 3/23/23; Bluth, J)