MCI Rent Increase Granted for Gas Re-piping

Landlord applied to the DHCR for MCI rent hikes based on gas re-piping and asbestos removal. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed and lost. Tenants claimed that there were 28 outstanding HPD B violations and 2 C violations at the building. They also claimed that the MCI rent increase would cause hardship and displacement for them. Tenants further claimed that landlord's application was untimely. The DHCR noted that landlord's architect had submitted a sworn statement that all B and C violations at the building had been cleared by Feb. 6, 2020, and that there were no lead paint violations at the building. So the DRA correctly approved the MCI application. Landlord also proved that it submitted its MCI application about a year after the work was completed. This was well within the two-year deadline for submission of the MCI application. And landlord's gas re-piping work was performed as part of a unified plan with a single contractor and wasn't piecemeal. Finally, tenant hardship wasn't a legal grounds for denying MCI rent increases. Tenants who qualified could avoid MCI rent increases through SCRIE or DRIE rent programs.

Various Tenants of 1104 to 1112 Carroll Place: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. IS630001RT (11/4/22)[3-pg. document]