Tenant Who Moved into Building After Sub Rehab Wasn't Rent Stabilized

LVT Number: #32563

Tenant complained to the DHCR of rent overcharge. The DRA ruled against tenant shortly after the agency issued a separate order finding that the building was exempt from rent regulation due to substantial rehabilitation. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant argued that it was improper to issue an order denying her overcharge complaint while a PAR was pending in connection with the other order finding sub rehab. But there had been a final ruling in the other case finding that the building had been substantially rehabilitated.

Tenant complained to the DHCR of rent overcharge. The DRA ruled against tenant shortly after the agency issued a separate order finding that the building was exempt from rent regulation due to substantial rehabilitation. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant argued that it was improper to issue an order denying her overcharge complaint while a PAR was pending in connection with the other order finding sub rehab. But there had been a final ruling in the other case finding that the building had been substantially rehabilitated. And tenant was the first tenant to occupy the apartment in question after the sub rehab was completed. So tenant wasn't subject to rent stabilization and tenant's complaint was correctly denied.

Khan: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. KR410020RT (4/20/23)[3-pg. document]

Downloads

32563.pdf141.25 KB