Landlord Gets Rent Increase for First-Time Painting of Rent-Controlled Apartment

Landlord asked the DHCR to increase rent-controlled tenant's maximum collectible rent based on painting of the apartment for the first time. Landlord claimed that painting wasn't previously a service included in tenant's rent. Landlord claimed that the painting cost $5,950 and that the MCR should be increased by $148.75 per month, equal to 1/40th of the painting cost. At some point, the DRA asked landlord for a painting history of the apartment. Landlord stated that it hadn't painted the apartment in the 14 years it owned the building. The DRA also asked landlord for an itemized breakdown of the costs of material and labor for the painting. The DRA ruled for landlord, finding that painting wasn't previously provided to tenant and ordered a 10 percent rent increase over tenant's Maximum Base Rent (MBR) of $1,030. The total rent increase was $103.

Landlord and tenant both appealed and lost. Tenant claimed that landlord didn't adequately prove its painting costs and that prior landlord had painted the apartment in 1995. But the DHCR's rent control records gave no indication that any prior landlord had painted the apartment, and tenant didn't prove that the apartment was previously painted by landlord. Landlord argued that the DRA improperly sought the cost breakdown and unreasonably approved a lower rent increase than it should have. But landlord didn't submit the requested labor cost information to the DRA and, even if the DRA had authorized 1/40th rent increases for painting in other cases and not requested a cost breakdown there, it wasn't required to follow those rulings and those rulings were the exception rather than the rule. 

Dillon/Vinocur: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket Nos. FR420032RT, FR420036RO (6/19/18) [7-pg. doc.]