Landlord Properly Cleared "C" Violations on Record

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on installation of apartment doors, asbestos abatement, a new burner, entrance doors, plumbing, pointing, and a new roof. The DHCR ruled for landlord.

Tenants appealed and lost. Tenants argued that there were eight open Class "C" violations at one building and 10 open class "C" violations at another building on the October 2017 application date. And, in November 2017, the DRA gave landlord notice asking it to resolve 23 open ECB class 1 violations at the two buildings. Tenants also had advised the DRA of new violations. In their PAR, tenants also asked the DHCR to send the case back to the DRA for reprocessing of the MCI application under the RSL amendments made by HSTPA.

The DHCR pointed out that the MCI increase was properly granted in accordance with RSC Section 2522.4(a)(13), as amended in 2014, which was in effect when the DRA issued its MCI order.  With its MCI application, landlord submitted an architect's affidavit stating that he'd inspected the buildings and found that all non-lead paint C violations had been corrected. Landlord's building manager also filed an affidavit stating that the process for abatement and removal of all lead paint C violations at the buildings had begun. A violation removal service company also submitted a letter stating that all ECB class 1 immediately hazardous violations at the buildings had been corrected. The MCI order wasn't issued until the lead paint violation had been removed from HPD's database.  

The DHCR also ruled that HSTPA amendments to the RSL, effective on June 14, 2019, didn't apply to pending appeals of DRA orders granting MCIs.

Various Tenants of 545, 553 and 557 46th Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. FV230028OM (8/4/22)[4-pg. document]