Tenants Didn't Raise Hazardous Violations Claim Before MCI Application Granted

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing and waterproofing. Tenants objected, claiming that the building was in poor condition. Landlord responded that any conditions complained of had been repaired. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed and lost. Among other things, tenants argued that there were 61 open HPD violations on record against the building, including some hazardous “C” violations. But tenants raised the violations for the first time on appeal and didn’t explain why they didn’t raise that claim before the DRA. And the DRA’s order granting landlord’s MCI application was issued before 2014 Rent Stabilization Code amendments changed the way that the DHCR processes MCI applications in connection with “C” violations. The DHCR now does its own search of HPD’s database to determine if there are any immediately hazardous violations. 

Various Tenants of 2707 Sedgwick Avenue: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. YC630048RT (8/12/15) [3-pg. doc.]