Parking Was Required Service Since Garage Owner Was Building Super

In 2017 the DHCR's Rent Administrator initiated a proceeding to determine whether parking was a required service at landlord's building. In 2018, the DRA ruled that parking wasn't a required service since it wasn't included in the rent, it wasn't registered as a service being provided, tenants paid for parking separately, and there was no common ownership between landlord and the garage space operator.

The DRA later reopened the case based on fraud, illegality, or irregularity in a vital matter. In 2019, the DRA revoked its prior order, finding that an indirect ownership existed between landlord and the parking garage owner because the prior building super was also the garage operator. The DRA held that parking was subject to rent guideline increases for rent-stabilized tenants but wasn't a base date ancillary service for rent-controlled tenants.

Landlord appealed and won at the PAR level. Tenants then filed an Article 78 court appeal, and the case was sent back to the DHCR for further consideration.

The DHCR now ruled against landlord. The building super met the regulatory definition of building "owner." This individual was simultaneously the parking garage owner and employed as superintendent of the building. This created the relationship as an agent of the owner. There also was no proof to indicate that the parking garage wasn't primarily intended for use of the building tenants. Since there was common ownership between the parking garage and the building, parking was subject to rent stabilization.

5400 Company: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket Nos. JX630001RP, HU630008RO (11/7/22)[3-pg. document]