DHCR to Decide if Violations Bar MBR Increase

Facts: Landlord applied for MBR in-creases for rent-controlled tenants for 1986-87 and 1988-89. Landlord certified that it had removed all rent-impairing violations and 80 percent of nonrent-impairing violations. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed, claiming that the violations hadn't been cleared. Landlord later brought an Article 78 proceeding, demanding that the DHCR rule on tenants' PARs. The court ordered the DHCR to rule within a certain time limit. When the DHCR didn't do so, landlord asked the court to find the DHCR in contempt of court. While landlord's motion was pending, the DHCR ruled on the PARs and ruled against tenants. Landlord and the DHCR settled the contempt motion through a stipulation that referred to the DHCR's PAR determinations. Tenants then appealed the DHCR's orders. The court sent the case back to the DHCR, which then overturned its prior orders and ruled for tenants. Landlord then appealed, claiming it hadn't been notified of the DHCR proceedings after the case was sent back by the court. The DHCR wanted to take the case back again. The court ruled against the DHCR and reinstated the original DHCR orders in which the DHCR ruled against tenants. Tenants and the DHCR appealed. Court: In reinstating the MBR increases, the lower court relied solely on the stipulation resolving landlord's contempt motion. When landlord and the DHCR settled the contempt motion, the ''so-ordered'' stipulation referred to the DHCR's PAR decisions, but there was no ruling on the merits of those orders. The DHCR's second ruling on the PARs, in tenants' favor, remains in effect while the DHCR takes the case back again to comply with notice requirements.

251 W. 92nd Corp. v. DHCR: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 3 (6/3/96) (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Sullivan, JP, Wallach, Ross, Williams, JJ)