New Doorman Service

Facts: Landlord applied to the DHCR for permission to increase rents for adding a new doorman service to the building. The DRA ruled for landlord, based on a finding that a substantial number of tenants supported the application. Various tenants appealed; some had supported landlord's original application, while others had not. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the rent increases. The DHCR found that landlord didn't get consent from 75 percent of tenants for the rent increase and new service. Landlord appealed. The lower court ruled against landlord, and landlord appealed again. Court: Landlord loses. DHCR correctly applied the current rent stabilization code, which required consent of 75 percent of tenants, to landlord's application. And even if the DHCR had applied the code provision in effect when landlord filed its application, landlord wouldn't have qualified for the building-wide rent increases because a ''substantial number'' of tenants hadn't consented. Silence couldn't be deemed to be consent. However, in ''balancing the equities,'' the DHCR improperly revoked rent increases for those tenants who had initially wanted the new service and agreed to the rent increase. Those tenants shouldn't benefit by having switched sides when other tenants filed a PAR seeking to revoke the rent increases.

Mountbatten Equities v. DHCR: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 1 (4/8/96) (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Murphy, PJ, Sullivan, Rubin, Ross, Tom, JJ)