Posted by No One on June 21, 2000 at 19:45:34:
In Reply to: re: Deregulation posted by MJ on June 20, 2000 at 14:53:52:
No, you don't understand. Even if you had read all of the suggested list, you still would not have understood. No one does yet, not even me.
You quoted the section dealing with MAXIMUM rent: those are the rent control sections, not the rent stabilized sections.
Further, the landlords and DHCR have been trying to claim for years that the apartment deregulates by magic when it is vacant; one lousy judge even wrote an illogical decision backing up this interpretation of the laws and codes. DHCR wrote an advisory opinion saying the same thing. HOWEVER: a higher court finally did say that a rent control apartment must become rent stabilized even for the first tenant even if the LEGAL rent does go beyond $2000. Its posted on TN and discussed on this board. At first, DHCR used to present vacancy $2000 tenants with the following catch-22: your application is rejected because your rent is over $2000. But their own rules and the RRRA's all require that the LEGAL REGULATED RENT be over $2000. Many cases about other issues (not about high rent dereg) have argued exactly which of three definitions of this term rules But the bottom line is: the law requires REGISTRATION of the rent, the rent is old rent plus vacancy allowances plus 1/40 of "improvements". DHCR must accept a challenge to any rent over $2000 because the LEGAL REGULATED RENT of $2000 must be made up a valid components.
DHCR has apparently stopped rejecting such challenges and actually is deciding some of them on the law. The Appellate Division, First (Manhattan & da Bronx) recntly affirmed this. Read the language in the bottom third carefully: these judges don't believe this or any landlord really spent A MINIMUM OF $46,000 on improvements!
old rent = $680 X 25% VACANCY = +$170 -$2000 = $1150 per month improvements at 1/40. $1150 x 40 = $46,000.
Jemrock Realty Co. v. DHCR
Judgment, Supreme Court , New York County (Stanley
Sklar, J.), entered on or about November 17, 1999, which,
in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia,
denied that branch of petitioner's application to annul
respondent New York State Division of Housing and
Community Renewal’s (DHCR's) award of treble damages
based on the finding that the owner's rent overcharge was
willful, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
DHCR reasonably concluded that petitioner landlord's
overcharge was willful. It should have been clear that
petitioner landlord’s purported increase of the legal regulated
rent for respondent tenant’s apartment from $679.45 to
more than $2,000, i.e., beyond the deregulation threshold
(see , Administrative Code of the City of NY § 26-504.2),
was not authorized. Even if the landlord had been entitled to
a full one-fortieth of the cost of certain improvements to the
subject apartment, the allowable rent would still not have
reached the $2,000 deregulation threshold, since, pursuant to
the Rent Stabilization Law and Code provisions in force at
the time respondent tenant entered into her lease , petitioner
was not entitled to any rent guideline increase in the legal
regulated rent while the rent reduction order affecting the
subject premises remained in effect, and such order, issued
by reason of reductions in building-wide services, was in
effect at the time respondent tenant executed her lease.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION ,
ENTERED: JUNE 20, 2000
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup