In Matter of 900 W. End Ave. Tenants Assn. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , a group of tenants challenged their landlord's attempt to raise their rents.
In 2000, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) permitted Atlantic Realty Apartments to replace manually operated elevators with automated elevators on condition that Atlantic install security cameras, a telephone system and storage lockers. According to the DHCR 's order, those "installations" wouldn't qualify for a Major Capital Improvement (MCI) rent increase.
When the tenants filed an administrative appeal -- or a Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) -- with the DHCR , the agency denied the appeal.
Once the elevator upgrade was completed, Atlantic applied for an MCI -- for "replacing old elevator components that had outlived their useful, 75-year life span" -- but the DHCR denied that request finding the 2000 order precluded any increases in connection with the elevator project. Atlantic then filed its own PAR and, in 2004, the agency reversed and found the 2000 order only referenced security related installations.
The tenants filed suit in the New York County Supreme Court -- pursuant to CPLR Article 78 -- challenging the DHCR 's determination. After the parties stipulated to have the matter sent back to the DHCR , the agency adhered to its 2004 decision. When the New York County Supreme Court found the agency in error and annulled that determination, Atlantic appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department, which reversed.
The AD1 found the Supreme Court improperly expanded the scope of DHCR 's 2000 order to cover the costs associated with the elevator replacements, noting the agency had only prohibited rent increases associated with the security installations.
Are these tenants going up?
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Matter of 900 W. End Ave. Tenants Assn. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal