Immediately Hazardous Violations on Record

January 1, 2006

LVT Number: 18563

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed and lost. The DRA denied landlord's MCI application because there were hazardous violations on record with HPD. Landlord didn't submit any proof that the violations had been removed. Landlord argued that it wasn't given sufficient opportunity to show that the violations were corrected. But landlord had submitted no proof six months after the DHCR requested additional information.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed and lost. The DRA denied landlord's MCI application because there were hazardous violations on record with HPD. Landlord didn't submit any proof that the violations had been removed. Landlord argued that it wasn't given sufficient opportunity to show that the violations were corrected. But landlord had submitted no proof six months after the DHCR requested additional information. Landlord shouldn't have assumed that the DRA had granted its sixth request for an extension simply because the DRA didn't respond to the request. The DRA didn't respond to landlord's first five requests either.

Weinreb Mgt. v. DHCR: NYLJ, 12/27/05, p. 26, col. 2 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Buckley, PJ, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe, Sullivan, JJ)

Topics

More like this