Tenants Didn't Prove Their Apartments Were SRO Units

Five tenants applied to the DHCR for a ruling on the regulatory status of their apartments. They claimed that they were improperly deregulated, that the building was a Class B multiple dwelling, and therefore subject to SRO rent guideline increases. They asked the DHCR to set legal rents for their units and to make findings of rent overcharge. The DRA ruled for tenants in part, finding insufficient proof to determine that there were SRO tenancies, and finding that the building was rent stabilized and subject to apartment or loft RGB Orders. The DRA set legal rents for three of the apartments.

Tenants appealed and won, in part. They still claimed they should be regulated as SRO units.

The DHCR found that two of the apartments had been improperly deregulated and that the tenants of those apartments could file rent overcharge complaints if warranted. The DHCR disagreed with tenants that the apartments were SROs and that rents were subject to the RGB's Annual Hotel/SRO Orders. Nothing showed that the apartments were or are in fact operating as single rooms in a multiple dwelling. Under RSC Section 2520.6, SROs became subject to rent regulation on June 4, 1981. One tenant submitted a sworn statement that, when he received a lease for his apartment some time around 1980, all other occupants had moved out.  Contrary to tenants' claims, there also was no proof of rent overcharges submitted to the DRA and the DRA properly advised tenants who may have been overcharged to file separate complaints.

Various Tenants of 75 Macdonough Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. KR210001RT (12/19/24)[8-pg. document]