City ofNew York OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT zoo 001.13 mm. NEW YORK. m. 19038 PERIHS Cmnmissiorwr Septembm 27, 2000 Joseph B. Ccmmissiancr Nam! ?z'ork State Division of Housing and Summit): Renewal 33-40 Slab: Street Hampton Plaza Albany. New York ?229? 038: Comm?ssioner We axe writing to express our cameras with propo'aed changas to the Rent Law. A?er a caref'ui examination of the proposed code, we have that several of the may have an impact upon existing tenant psot??tions. We m?ge you to tecousider some: of the proposals. Speci?cally Wt are concernad with seven noticc pmvisions and presumptions found in. th: proposed code. They range from shortening the pcriod by which EDI-ICE. can investigate rent overcharges to cam items which may pmsent a safety issue and hinder that ability of tenants to obtain an inspection. The City has made remarkable strides in recent yams in improving she quality a? housing {Maugham the ?ve boroughs. Th: I999 Housing Vacancy Survey reports that physical housing an? conditions in the City are {ha since the Suwey started coming camarable conditions in the earl)! 19??05. The State, and DHCR. in particular, has been a partner in many of these Successful We look foward $0 wozking with yet: in order to Sneovporatc Our attached comments inie your proposed code changes. if you have any questions, you can either reach me: at {2 2) 863-5100 or Joseph Ros cnb?g, Deputy Commissioner ofPlanning and mtergovmmental Affairs at (213) 863-5241. Bin Jen'l Ferine waginng {2133534109 1, millil353'793?5 .0 COMMENTS 70 THE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COWITY RENEWAL THE AMENDMENTS TO THE RENT STABILIZATION CODE I. 1. STATUTE 0F LIMITATIONS ON RESET GVERCHARGES AND RETENTION OF RECORDS [Sections and The proposod monument; estabikh a 4 year statute of limitations on root ovorghargcs and the period by which the owner is monitor! to maintain records. This resolts in the period by which DHCR can inves?gato if 3 base rent might have oontained m2 ovetcharge. Th: 4 yoar statute of on rentovoz'charges shook! not be interpreted to apply where tho property owner has faiiod to timely register roots with DHCR or where tho rents mgis?iorod are palatal}! ?ctitious. {Compost Myers v. Frankel, 184 Misc 29? 608 (2900) and Realty Cory. v. Bixoo, 180 Misc. 2? i013?1999? 2. SERVICE 2523.41 The proposed code establishes a list of ?do minimis" modi?ers that comm: be used by a tonani to contend that there has boen a reduction in services; DHCR shook! clarify that certain conditions shall not be considered ?de minimis? such as those resulting in housing code violations, conditions that deal with minor exterior masons! deterioration. or any other violations of law. The proposed change speci?ca?y states that minor deterioration ofmasonry and failure to point em?or bricks when: there is no interior leak damago are ?de minimis?. Wis should not be the case, Any facade deterioration cam be insigni?cant without a domin impaction. It shouki also be wood that an accumulation of ?do minimis? oompiaints may imiicaxa a serious deteriorauon in services. 3. MCI ENCREASES AND INSPECTIONS {Section 2522.4] The proposcd coda limits on tenant?s ability to obtain a DHCR inspection whet: chailonging an mat Encroasc. It miss that a tenant?s a?cgations of defective: installa?on can be resolved by tho ?af?davit of an indepeodmt licensed architoot or mgineor? that the condition either did not exist or was concotod. This ?31311113171: prcsumption can only be ooumered by ?persuasive evidence" including, for oxarapl?. 311ng an af?davit by a licensee} architect or engineer or an a?'tdavit by 51% of the oompiaining tenants. This apparent 51% roguimmoni is burdmsomc and wouid have the c??oct of reducing {ho frogueocy of inspections. It should be eliminated the proposed code. 4. DE REGULATION ORDER [Sectioo 2520.! The proposed code pem?ts a. tenant to be oviaod by mom of a dereguiation order, ifthe tenant has failed to provide. Mex-motion on income. DHCR shonld include in' the proposed code the standard for ?om: of a dafanlt? in compliance with tho Now York Stats Court oprme. In a 1999 decision, {Woman v. DECK, 94 ~32? 3590999)}, 111:: court held that must consider whether a tenant?s am ?ling should bc pem?twd by DHCR for good cause shown. The Woman case resultod From past practioo of deregutatiog an apartment on dofanlt, regardless oftho merits, i 2? any tenant should bo as link as may law in providing infomtion. Tho proposed cod: provi?ss no mechanism for vacating deioqu in the oven: o?c?a meritorious case and should be changed. 5. TAX INCENTIVES AND DEREGULATION [Sm?on 2528, 1 Curfent law rcquircs Mia! units receiving tax moen?vcs pursuant to the 3?51 rchabilita?on program and the 421-3: construction pmgzam tn mmain stabilized for the term of rim tax incentive benc?z. The proposed cod: sums that high imam: and high rent does an: appiy to rent stabilizaj units that became. rcgulatcd solely due to the z:me inccn?ves, In this, instance the proposed code appears to permit the dcregnla?on of units that were not intended to be demgulatcd. 6. DEREGULATION 0F UNITS [Sectimz 2520.? Local Law 13 of 1997 was intended to clarify that during the period between April I, 1994 and April I, 199?, an apamnent may be considered deregulated only when the Last tenant, prior to vacating the paid a in the proposed code. Additionally, the 90 day time ??ame set fan}: in the code [Sections 2526. for a tenant to bring an overcharge hcaring is too shed a period of?mg. The 90 day time ?me Stargdy contrasts with the 4 year statute of limitations in the proposed code which would assist property owners in rebutting tenants? overcharge claims. Rather than attempting to sci an adn?nistra?vc that is not supported by the code, DHCR shank! seek a. legislative or judicial Insulation: of??s matter. FAMLY MEMBERS [Sectian The proposed code provides a ?m?y member succeeds to a lease, owner must noti?: DHCR. There is no requirement that the tenant be noti?ed. Under the proposed code this noti?caxian ?0 BHCR creates a rcbu?ablc presumption pcnnitting the ewner to receive a vacancy increase. This is signi?cant since at the second successor tenancy, the prop?rty owner is entitled to a substantial vacancy increase. Accordingly, the code should provide that the netice of the successor tenancy shouici also be my: to the tenant. and the code: should permit :11: mm: the oppoxtut?ty to counter the prcsumption at the oursct. .