Landlord Didn't Respond to Notice of Amended Violation Provisions Added by HSTPA

Landlord applied to the DHCR for MCI rent hikes based on elevator upgrading. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that landlord had failed to submit proof of all payments as well as proof of having resolved all HPD violations, including lead-based paint.

Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that it had submitted proof of all payments to the DRA. But the record showed that landlord initially submitted proof of only three installments. The DRA sent landlord five Requests for Additional Information (RFAIs), seeking three additional installment payment checks. But landlord submitted proof of only two of the three outstanding payments.

Landlord also questioned the DRA's finding on violations. The DHCR explained that, when the MCI application was filed on May 3, 2019, applicable law and regulations stated that an MCI application wouldn't be granted if any Class "C" immediately hazardous violations were pending on the filing date. If there were any Class C violations on that date, the DRA would notify landlord and allow 60 days for correction. In this case, landlord reported that seven Class C violations were pending, that four of those had been corrected, that the remaining three violations were for lead paint in one apartment, and that landlord had filed for reinspection to have those violations removed.

Then, in June 2019, the Rent Stabilization Law was amended by the HSTPA effective immediately. HSTPA amended the MCI violation provisions so that violations now included all Class C violations as well as Class "B" hazardous violations, and all such violations must be corrected before an MCI application would be granted. The DRA notified landlord in three separate notices of this change in the law and requested additional information. But landlord didn't respond, so the MCI application was properly denied. Landlord argued incorrectly that the change in the law shouldn't have applied to its application. Landlord also claimed for the first time on appeal that tenant didn't grant access. So the DHCR wouldn't consider that claim.

Emor SK LP: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. JM210022RO (12/14/21)[5-pg. document]