DHCR Should Have Decided Landlord's PAR Before Denying Application to Restore Rent

(Decision submitted by Manhattan attorney Eileen O'Toole, who represented the landlord.) Facts: Tenants complained of reduced building-wide services. They complained there was no live-in superintendent to respond quickly to problems like leaks and garbage. The DRA ruled for tenants, based on findings that there was accumulated garbage on the sidewalk and there were peeling bulkhead walls. Landlord appealed, claiming that full janitorial service was provided, that there was no accumulated garbage, and that roof leaks had been repaired. Landlord also filed an application to restore rents, stating that even if any of these conditions had existed, they were now repaired. After over three years, the DHCR hadn't decided landlord's PAR. The DRA then denied landlord's application to restore rent. Landlord appealed the denial of its rent restoration application, claiming that the DHCR should have first decided landlord's PAR on the merits of the rent reduction order before denying the rent restoration application. DHCR: Landlord wins. The DHCR had decided landlord's first PAR and ruled partially in landlord's favor. Since there were fewer conditions on which to base the rent cuts, landlord had to contend with fewer items in its application to restore rents. The DHCR now also granted landlord's application to restore rents.

Birdoff: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. EC 430242-RO (2/8/94) [3-page document]; HE 4301280-RO (2/8/94) [3-page document]