No Reason to Examine Pre-Base Date Rent History Concerning Longevity Increase

LVT Number: #28424

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of rent overcharge. The DRA ruled against tenant, finding no overcharge. Tenant appealed and lost. The DRA correctly applied the four-year rule to this case and found no overcharge since the base rent date. Tenant pointed out that the apartment rent history involved a pre-base date longevity increase, so the DRA should have looked back more than four years. But investigation of information concerning a longevity would be for landlord's benefit and wasn't needed in this case. Tenant also showed no indication of fraud by landlord.

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of rent overcharge. The DRA ruled against tenant, finding no overcharge. Tenant appealed and lost. The DRA correctly applied the four-year rule to this case and found no overcharge since the base rent date. Tenant pointed out that the apartment rent history involved a pre-base date longevity increase, so the DRA should have looked back more than four years. But investigation of information concerning a longevity would be for landlord's benefit and wasn't needed in this case. Tenant also showed no indication of fraud by landlord. The were no missing rent registrations for the apartment. Landlord showed that it applied a legal vacancy increase, longevity increase, and individual apartment improvement (IAI) rent increase to set tenant's initial rent. 

Cardoso: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. EW210073RT (3/20/18) [8-pg. doc.]

Downloads

EW210073RT.pdf3.55 MB