Immediately Hazardous Violations Were Cleared Before Application Filed

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on elevator upgrading. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed and lost. Tenants argued that: (1) the elevator work consisted of repairs that were needed due to a lack of routine maintenance; (2) the MCI increases created a financial hardship for tenants; (3) the building had four class "C" violations on record at HPD; (4) the elevator remained defective after completion of the upgrade; (5) the DHCR should've inspected the installation prior to approving the MCI increase; and (6) the elevator contract didn't include installation of a selector.

The DHCR noted that landlord submitted all necessary documentation for approval of the work and that DOB signed off on the elevator upgrade. As to the "C" violations, the MCI application was processed under the 2014 Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) amendments. Landlord submitted an architect's affidavit dated July 9, 2017, with its October 2017 MCI application, which stated that all four open HPD "C" violations had been remedied and no longer existed. In response to tenants' PAR, landlord submitted a letter from its contractor stating that both a selector and controller were installed with the elevator upgrade. And tenants hadn't raised this issue before the DRA. Any inspection by the DRA was discretionary, not mandatory. And the RSC has no provision to exempt tenants from MCI rent increases based on affordability. 

Various Tenants of 181 Rockaway Parkway: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. GQ210036RT (4/23/21) [3-pg. doc.]