MCI Application for Window Replacement Denied

(Decision submitted by David Hershey-Webb, Esq. of the Manhattan law firm of Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph LLP, attorneys for the tenant).

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes in 2007 based on the installation of new windows. Tenants objected, claiming that there were "C" violations in the building, including violations for broken window parts in several apartments. The DRA ruled for landlord and granted MCI increases in November 2009. Tenants appealed. The DHCR ruled for tenants in 2014 and revoked the MCI rent hikes. Landlord then filed an Article 78 court appeal. The case was sent back to the DHCR for reconsideration. Both sides responded to the remanded case. Tenants claimed that more than six windows weren't replaced as part of the new window installation. The DRA ruled for tenants and affirmed the denial of the MCI rent hikes. Landlord filed a PAR, and the DHCR restored the MCI rent increase in 2016. Tenants then filed an Article 78 court appeal.

The court ruled for tenants. The DHCR failed to follow its own precedent and policy in granting the MCI rent hikes where not all windows in the building were replaced. The DHCR abused its discretion in reconsidering its determination. There was no illegality, irregularity in vital matters, or fraud. While the DHCR claimed that landlord didn't have a prior opportunity to explain why it hadn't replaced the omitted windows, review of the record shows that landlord did offer prior explanations, which the DHCR rejected.

151 East 80th Street Tenants Association v. DHCR: Index No. 151598/17 (Sup. Ct. NY; 7/25/18; Jaffe, J) [10-pg. doc.]