Court Revokes DHCR Rent Reduction Order

(Decision submitted by Karen Schwartz-Sidrane, of the Rockville Centre law firm of Sidrane, Schwartz-Sidrane, Perinbasekar & Littman LLP, attorneys for the landlord.)

Tenants complained to the DHCR of a reduction in building-wide services based on defective elevator service. The DRA ruled for tenants based on the DHCR inspector's finding that the elevator was misleveling. The DHCR denied landlord's PAR and affirmed the DRA's ruling. Landlord then filed an Article 78 court appeal and argued that the DHCR's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable.

The court ruled for landlord and denied the DHCR's request to take the case back for further fact-finding. The court noted that the DHCR's inspector took photographs of the building's laundry room, which wasn't a subject of the complaint, but no photos of the elevator. And the inspector's report contained no measurements of the misleveling, no reference to which floors the misleveling occurred on, no photographs, nor any other details concerning the claimed condition. The inspector's report stated simply that, "Elevator not level properly on all floors, elevator stopped on all floors of the building at the time of inspection."  The court found no rational basis for the DHCR's decision and no reason to send the case back based on the DHCR's "bare conclusion" that the agency "may deem it necessary and appropriate to conduct an additional inspection."

65 Hillside Realty LLC v. DHCR: Index No. 161306/2020 (Sup. Ct. NY; 9/20/21; Nervo, J) [6-pg. doc.]