Rent Hike Based on Unique and Peculiar Circumstances Denied

LVT Number: #23733

Landlord applied for building-wide rent increases in a rent-stabilized building that was formerly subject to Mitchell-Lama. Landlord claimed that under the prior regulation, the low rents presented unique and peculiar circumstances. The DRA ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost. Rent Stabilization Code Section 2522.3(f)(4) was added in 2007 to provide that prior regulation of rents under the Private Housing Finance Law or any other state or federal law didn't, in and of itself, constitute a unique and peculiar circumstance. This provision has been upheld by an appeals court.

Landlord applied for building-wide rent increases in a rent-stabilized building that was formerly subject to Mitchell-Lama. Landlord claimed that under the prior regulation, the low rents presented unique and peculiar circumstances. The DRA ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost. Rent Stabilization Code Section 2522.3(f)(4) was added in 2007 to provide that prior regulation of rents under the Private Housing Finance Law or any other state or federal law didn't, in and of itself, constitute a unique and peculiar circumstance. This provision has been upheld by an appeals court. Landlord must file a hardship application with the DHCR if it maintains that rents are too low.

Rivera: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. YG620107RO (9/27/11) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

YG620107RO.pdf75.07 KB