Landlord Gets MCI Rent Hike for Backflow Prevention Device

The DHCR's Rent Administrator granted landlord's MCI rent increase application based on installation of a backflow prevention device, electric riser/pump, and associated engineering costs. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant claimed that the backflow preventer didn't qualify as an MCI. Tenant also argued that there was a current HPD "C" violation for an immediately hazardous condition, and that HSTPA should be applied to this proceeding. But landlord was required to install a backflow preventer to comply with NYC and NY State regulations and codes. So the device qualified as an MCI. Also, at the time the MCI application was filed, there was no "C" violation and therefore no bar to granting an MCI increase. And the language of HSTPA fails to expressly state that the Act applies to pending MCI appeals. While separate sections of HSTPA expressly direct the DHCR to apply the new law, HSTPA refers only to certain types of non-MCI claims that were pending when HSTPA was enacted in June 2019. The absence of such express statements with respect to pending MCI appeals indicates that HSTPA isn't intended to apply to such cases. But HSTPA does specifically state that certain revised provisions on collectability shall be applied to MCI rent increases, and these provisions were stated in the DHCR's order.

Senter: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. GP130022RT (11/19/20) [2-pg. doc.]