No Proof of Fraud in Deregulation of Apartment After Rent Control

Tenant claimed that he was rent stabilized and complained of rent overcharge. The DRA ruled against tenant. The rent paid by tenant under an unregulated vacancy lease on March 1, 2007, was more than $2,000 per month. Tenant also didn't sufficiently show that there was any fraud that would require the DHCR to investigate the base-date rent.

Tenant appealed and lost. Prior landlord, tenant, and tenant's mother had signed an agreement stating that tenant's mother wasn't residing in the apartment as her primary residence for a continuous period of two years before rent-controlled tenant died and therefore didn't have succession rights to the apartment. Tenant's mother also agreed to move out by Nov. 30, 2006. Landlord would then renovate the apartment and offer tenant an unregulated lease. Tenant now claimed that this was an unlawful agreement that forced a waiver of rights under rent stabilization. But the agreement merely clarified the right and positions of all involved. The agreement didn't prevent tenant or his mother from asserting succession rights to the apartment, and the agreement didn't bar tenant from filing a fair market rent appeal as the first tenant to move in after statutory decontrol. It was undisputed that tenant failed to file a fair market rent appeal within four years after the apartment was no longer subject to rent control. Tenant's mother was never the tenant of record, and the apartment was vacant before tenant moved in. Prior landlord also had detailed in the agreement the individual apartment improvements made while the apartment was vacant. Landlord properly charged a vacancy increase and the legal rent was properly deregulated.

Lowinger: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. BV410039RT (9/8/14) [11-pg. doc.]