DHCR's Explanatory Addenda Called for Continuation of Tenant's Rent-Stabilized Status

Landlord applied in 2016 for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant's rent-stabilized apartment after tenant failed to respond to the Income Certification Form (ICF) sent earlier that year. The DRA ruled for landlord based on tenant's failure to fully respond and to provide tax match information for 2014 and 2015. The DRA's August 2018 order ruled that, upon expiration of tenant's existing lease, the deregulation order would be effective.

Later, in September 2019, the DRA sent landlord an Explanatory Addenda (EA) to the deregulation order, which stated that because the HSTPA had discontinued apartment deregulation effective June 14, 2019, tenant's apartment wouldn't be deregulated if the lease in effect in August 2018 expired after the effective date of the HSTPA.

Landlord appealed the EA and lost. Landlord argued that the April 2020 decision of New York's highest court in Regina Metro. Co LLC v. DHCR should be extended to this case to void retroactive application of the discontinuation of high-rent/high-income deregulation. But the Regina decision applied specifically to certain rent overcharge provisions in HSTPA and didn't apply here. And the EA merely explained how HSTPA applied to its August 2018 deregulation order, which specifically noted that the apartment remained rent-stabilized until the current renewal lease expired. By the time that occurred, HSTPA had eliminated high-rent/high-income deregulation. So the apartment was no longer subject to deregulation.

The DHCR had no authority to rule on landlord's claim that HSTPA's repeal of luxury deregulation provisions was unconstitutional. 

Fortune/Maxtor Realty Corp.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket Nos. GU210021RT, HV210258RO (10/14/20) [8-pg. doc.]