No Rent Reduction Orders Were Pending When MCI Application Was Granted

Landlord applied to the DHCR for MCI rent hikes based on installation of a new fuel storage tank. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed and lost. They claimed that the DRA erred by processing the MCI application while landlord had two building-wide rent reduction applications pending before the DHCR. The DHCR found that tenants' claim was in error. There were no DHCR orders in effect at the time the MCI increases were granted that had determined the landlord's failure to maintain building-wide services at the building. Instead, two building-wide service complaints, both unrelated to the MCI, were filed after the MCI application was filed. Both of those complaints were decided after the MCI order was issued. Those service complaints, while pending, didn't bar the DRA from granting the MCI rent increases. Tenants also had claimed that they were denied equal protection under the U.S. and NY State Constitutions by the DHCR in its processing of the MCI application. But tenants weren't members of a protected class and alleged no facts sufficient to prove that the DHCR's treatment was intentional or differential. DHCR Policy Statement 90-8 provided that a rent restoration application will be expedited only if such application was pending when the MCI application was filed. But there were no such rent restoration applications in this case. 

Various Tenants of 140-60 Beech Avenue: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. MO110004RT (8/9/24)[2-pg. document]