Landlord Offered Proper Rent-Stabilized Lease to Former Loft Tenant

Under a Loft Board Order, tenant's building was no longer an Interim Multiple Dwelling (IMD) and became subject to rent stabilization. Tenant then complained to the DHCR that landlord offered her an improper lease. The DRA ruled against tenant, who appealed and lost. Tenant claimed that the offered lease contained many invalid clauses that conflicted with the Multiple Dwelling Law and Loft Law. For example, the lease required tenant to comply with orders and regulations of insurance rating organizations, which wasn't required under rent stabilization. Tenant also claimed that landlord failed to include her husband and adult son as named parties to the lease.

The Loft Board order directed landlord to offer tenant a residential rent-stabilized lease subject to the ETPA. The rent offered in the lease was correct. The insurance regulation provision in the lease was part of a provision regarding tenant's duty to obey and comply with laws, regulations, and lease rules and didn't conflict with the rent stabilization law or code. Another lease clause that permitted landlord to enter tenant's apartment under reasonable circumstances and only after reasonable notice also was consistent with the Rent Stabilization Code. Tenant was entitled to request the addition of her husband's name to a rent-stabilized lease but hadn't done so before the lease was offered and can't raise this issue retroactively as grounds to refuse to execute the lease. And landlord wasn't required to add the son's name to the rent-stabilized lease. The DRA properly dismissed tenant's complaint.

Lawenda: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. CP410053RT (3/11/15) [4-pg. doc.]