By Eileen O’Toole, Esq., Contributing Editor
At this writing, the two so-called “Regina repealer bills,” passed by the New York State Legislature in June 2023 still await enactment pending review by Governor Hochul. Rent-regulated building owners also continue to wait for the DHCR’s issuance of amended rent stabilization and rent control rules so that these regulations conform to changes to the laws made in 2019 by the HSTPA.
By Eileen O’Toole, Esq., Contributing Editor
At this writing, the two so-called “Regina repealer bills,” passed by the New York State Legislature in June 2023 still await enactment pending review by Governor Hochul. Rent-regulated building owners also continue to wait for the DHCR’s issuance of amended rent stabilization and rent control rules so that these regulations conform to changes to the laws made in 2019 by the HSTPA.
Meanwhile, the DHCR continues to issue decisions in a series of “sub rehab” cases where owners have applied for determinations that certain buildings were exempt from rent regulation based on substantial rehabilitation. Some decisions have focused on whether there was proof that a building was in substandard or seriously deteriorated condition prior to commencement of a rehab project. See, e.g., Matter of Cypress Hills Ventures LLC [LVT#32718], finding insufficient proof of substandard condition, and Matter of 852 Hard LLC [LVT #32721], reiterating other similar recent rulings that tenant buy-outs proved a building could not have been in substandard condition when work commenced.
In another case, a court upheld the DHCR’s denial of a sub rehab application where the owner refused to submit lease records during the application process. In 8 Ave Holdings LLC v. DHCR [LVT#32753], the landlord claimed that these documents weren’t needed to make a ruling, but the court found that the DHCR reasonably maintained that these records could provide information on status of work performed and whether individual tenants were in occupancy during the rehab process.
In another matter concerning a rent-stabilized apartment, the DHCR granted an apartment owner a rent increase based on the infrequently cited “unique and peculiar circumstances” provision of the Rent Stabilization Law. In Matter of Fergusson/East Hampton Capital LLC [LVT #32717], the DHCR reviewed a lease granted by a prior owner to a loft tenant in 1988 for an indefinite rental term at $300 per month. Since there was no question that the unit was now rent stabilized, and the apartment had been sold to a new owner, the DHCR found that it would be against public policy to avoid lease renewals in light of the Rent Stabilization Law. Balancing the equities, the DHCR also granted a series of rent guideline increases between 1988 and 2022 to bring the current rent up to $744 per month.
In an unusual decision, HLP1 MRU LLC v. Ishrak [LVT #32738], the Housing Court granted the owner’s motion for summary judgment in a nuisance case rather than holding an inquest after the tenant failed to appear on the initial return date. A property manager and tenant each submitted sworn statements describing the loud music played by the tenant late at night. The court’s ruling in effect put the tenant on probation so that he could return to court in 60 days to prove no further incidents had occurred and avoid eviction.
