No Fraudulent Scheme to Deregulate Found in Connection with 63% Rent Hike

LVT Number: #33668

Tenant complained to the DHCR of rent overcharge in April 2019. The DRA ruled for tenant in part, finding that he had been overcharged but that no damages were due to tenant in light of his rent arrears. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant pointed out that a 63 percent rent increase in 2012 showed that the landlord didn't comply with rent guidelines and had engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the unit. But the four-year base date in this pre-HSTPA case was in April 2015.

Tenant complained to the DHCR of rent overcharge in April 2019. The DRA ruled for tenant in part, finding that he had been overcharged but that no damages were due to tenant in light of his rent arrears. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant pointed out that a 63 percent rent increase in 2012 showed that the landlord didn't comply with rent guidelines and had engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the unit. But the four-year base date in this pre-HSTPA case was in April 2015. Rental events prior to the base date can't be reviewed unless there was evidence of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate. But a claimed illegal rent increase, standing alone, was insufficient to prove a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartment.

Williams: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. MW210006RT (3/31/25)[2-pg. document]

Downloads

33668.pdf80.23 KB