Confusion Over Uncollected RGBO Increase Caused Repeated Recalculation of Legal Rent

LVT Number: #31054

Landlord applied to the DHCR for determination of tenant's legal and preferential rents for the period between Feb. 1, 2014, and Jan. 31, 2015. The DRA found that the legal rent was $1,344 and the preferential rent was $914. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant then filed an Article 78 court appeal. The case was sent back to the DHCR for further consideration. The DHCR again ruled against tenant, who then filed another Article 78 appeal. The case was sent back again, and the DHCR ruled for tenant.

Landlord applied to the DHCR for determination of tenant's legal and preferential rents for the period between Feb. 1, 2014, and Jan. 31, 2015. The DRA found that the legal rent was $1,344 and the preferential rent was $914. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant then filed an Article 78 court appeal. The case was sent back to the DHCR for further consideration. The DHCR again ruled against tenant, who then filed another Article 78 appeal. The case was sent back again, and the DHCR ruled for tenant. There was no proof that landlord preserved or charged a $45 rent increase under RGBO #40 for the period in question. Tenant's 2007-2008 lease and rider indicated only a preferential collectible rent minus a temporary credit. Landlord never added the $45 increase that was a subject of legal dispute until resolved by New York's highest court in the 2011 Casado case. Since landlord never added the $45 rent increase, it should be removed from the DRA's calculation of tenant's legal rent.

Shahid: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. HP110001RP (9/30/20) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

HP110001RP.pdf2.25 MB