HSTPA Restriction Against MCI Increases Inapplicable on Appeal

Landlord applied to the DHCR for MCI rent hikes based on facade work and accompanying architectural services. The DRA ruled for landlord and tenants appealed. Tenants claimed that the DRA incorrectly processed an MCI application filed separately for their building. Instead, they argued, the DRA should have processed this application together with others that landlord filed for different buildings in the complex. Tenants later amended their PAR to argue that, under the HSTPA, effective June 14, 2019, a building like theirs that contained less than 35 percent rent-regulated apartments wasn't eligible for MCI rent increases. And, if it was eligible, under HSTPA their MCI rent increases should be recalculated under a longer amortization period. Tenants claimed that the HSTPA amendments applied to their pending PAR.

The DHCR ruled against tenants. First, the MCI wasn't performed as a complex-wide installation. Invoices and cancelled checks indicated that the MCI facade work, including architect services, was performed as a single project at the building. Second, the HSTPA amendments didn't expressly state that the law applied to pending MCI appeals. While some other, separate sections of HSTPA expressly directed the DHCR to apply the new law, HSTPA referred only to certain types of non-MCI claims that were pending when the law was enacted on June 14, 2019. So HSTPA wasn't intended to apply except certain revised provisions on collectability of MCI rent increases. 

200-216 West 99th Street Tenants' Association: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. EU430036RT (7/29/20) [3-pg. doc.]