Rent Reduction Order Bars MCI Rent Hike

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes. The DRA ruled against landlord because landlord wasn't maintaining all required services at the building. Landlord appealed, saying that, although a building-wide rent reduction order had been issued previously, services had been restored. Landlord argued that the DHCR had rejected landlord's application to restore rents only because landlord's signature was missing from the application. The DHCR ruled against landlord. The building-wide rent reduction order was issued in January 2003. Landlord later filed its MCI application and, after that, filed its application to restore rents in May 2006. After landlord's rent restoration application was rejected for lack of a signature, landlord didn't refile until March 2007. The DHCR ruled against landlord. The rent reduction order was in effect when the DHCR ruled on landlord's MCI application. Landlord's unsigned application to restore rents was meaningless. The DRA reasonably determined that landlord wasn't maintaining all required services when the MCI application was denied.

571 West 175th Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. VC430054RO (11/7/07) [2-pg. doc.]