Tenant Didn't Report "C" Violation While MCI Application Was Pending

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new burner. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant claimed that HPD had issued multiple violations for failure to maintain required services in tenant's apartment. Although most of the violations were issued after the date of the order approving the MCI increases, one immediately hazardous DOB violation predated the MCI order and barred the increase. But tenant didn't raise these issues before the DRA and couldn't raise them now for the first time in his PAR. The DRA's order also was issued before a 2014 Rent Stabilization Code amendment changed the way that the DHCR processed MCI applications. DHCR policy prior to January 2014 required tenants to raise the issue of immediately hazardous violations while the MCI proceeding was pending before the DRA. The DHCR now initiates its own search of HPD's database to determine if there are any immediately hazardous "C" violations in the building.

Stoner: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. BV430024RT (3/4/15) [2-pg. doc.]