DHCR's Finding That Buildings Were an HMD Wasn't a Final Ruling Subject to Appeal

Three tenants filed rent overcharge complaints with the DHCR and claimed that they were rent stabilized. According to landlord, the DRA denied these complaints, but then three new complaints were filed, which the DRA again denied. Tenants then appealed the DRA's denial of the new complaints. The DHCR found that the building was part of a horizontal multiple dwelling (HMD) and therefore was rent stabilized.

The DHCR's inspector found that the main flue from the central boiler/heating system served two adjacent buildings and was located in the basement of one of them. The buildings also shared a common boiler, main water line, sewage line, electrical line, and that nine electrical meters for both buildings and a main electric breaker were located in the basement of one of the buildings. The basement of the buildings was divided by a foundation wall with holes for common piping and wiring. Six residential unit mailboxes were located in one building. The buildings didn't share a roof, had separate entrances, and didn't have identical or adjacent fronts. So the DHCR issued an order stating that the two buildings should be considered rent stabilized as an HMD and that the case should go back to the DRA for determination of the rent overcharge claims. 

Landlord then filed an Article 78 court appeal of the DHCR's remand order. The DHCR argued that, since the PAR decision wasn't a final administrative determination, landlord's Article 78 appeal was premature. The court agreed and dismissed the appeal. Landlord hadn't yet "exhausted" its administrative remedies. 

Great Harmony Realty Corp. v. DHCR: Index No. 159615/2021, 2022 NY Slip Op Op 30097(U)(Sup. Ct. NY; 1/12/22; Bluth, J)