Tenant Claims Landlord Didn't Correct Enough Violations

Facts: Landlord applied for maximum base rent (MBR) increases for 1992–93. The DRA ruled for landlord, and rent-controlled tenant appealed, claiming that landlord hadn't corrected enough violations to qualify for MBR increases and that there were still violations in his apartment. The DHCR found that landlord hadn't submitted enough proof of correction of three of the nine nonrent-impairing violations with his original application, so it revoked the rent increases. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DHCR didn't address the issues raised in tenant's PAR, but instead reopened the original application without giving landlord a chance to submit proof of correction of the three violations in question. The DHCR claimed that, under the Rent Stabilization Code, it was entitled to address issues not raised in tenant's PAR because of an ''irregularity in a vital matter.'' Court: Landlord wins. Even if the DHCR was entitled to review proof of correction of violations not challenged in tenant's PAR based on an irregularity, it should have given landlord notice and a chance to submit further proof. The case was sent back to the DHCR to allow landlord to show whether it had corrected the three violations in question.

Walker v. DHCR: NYLJ, p. 27, col. 3 (10/13/99) (Sup. Ct. NY; Weissberg, J)