MCI Application Reopened Based on Questions About Hazardous Violations

Landlord applied to the DHCR for MCI rent hikes based on installation of a firestone eco white roof/skylight. The DRA ruled for landlord and increased tenants' rents. One tenant appealed, and the case was reopened. Tenant claimed that there were outstanding violations at the building when the order was issued and that landlord's architect falsely certified outstanding violations as remedied when hazardous conditions still existed.

The DHCR found that there was at least one outstanding immediately hazardous and/or hazardous violation on record and unresolved when the DRA order was issued on Jan. 4, 2023. The DHCR also found that the architect affidavit submitted by landlord failed to adhere to DHCR requirements to confirm that the conditions that caused the violations to be placed had been remedied. So the DHCR revoked the DRO order and sent the case back to the DRA for further processing of landlord's application.

Bisono: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. LN410008RT (6/7/24)[2-pg. document]