Limitations on Vacancy Increase Under Rent Act of 2015 Didn't Apply

LVT Number: #31237

Tenant complained of rent overcharge and improper deregulation of her apartment. The DRA ruled for tenant, finding the legal rent to be $1,750 per month. Landlord appealed and argued that prior tenant paid $2,188. After prior tenant moved out, the next legal rent was above the $2,500 vacancy deregulation threshold after applying an 18.25 percent vacancy increase. So, the apartment was vacancy-deregulated and properly removed from rent stabilization. The DHCR ruled against landlord but reopened the case in response to landlord's request for reconsideration.

Tenant complained of rent overcharge and improper deregulation of her apartment. The DRA ruled for tenant, finding the legal rent to be $1,750 per month. Landlord appealed and argued that prior tenant paid $2,188. After prior tenant moved out, the next legal rent was above the $2,500 vacancy deregulation threshold after applying an 18.25 percent vacancy increase. So, the apartment was vacancy-deregulated and properly removed from rent stabilization. The DHCR ruled against landlord but reopened the case in response to landlord's request for reconsideration. The DHCR then ruled for landlord. The rent charged to prior tenant in a May 1, 2013, lease was a preferential rent. The DRA applied a 5 percent vacancy increase to that rent when calculating tenant's legal vacancy rent, based on RSL amendments issued in the Rent Act of 2015. But tenant's vacancy lease took effect in February 2015, before the Rent Act of 2015 took effect. So, landlord properly applied the 18.25 percent rent increase, yielding a legal rent of $2,587 per month. Tenant's apartment therefore was properly deregulated.

Owl Creek Properties, LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. HX610001RK (12/3/20) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

HX610001RK.pdf1.02 MB