Queens Tenants Win MCI Case
by Jon Lilienthal

Governor George Pataki’s housing agency, the state Division of Housing and Community Renewal, was put in its place in September by the Lakeside Renters Association of Bayside, Queens.

The DHCR had previously granted the building owner a major-capital-improvement (MCI) rent increase for “new windows.” This occurred in spite of the fact that the building’s tenants have suffered from years of reduced services, including the new windows—which proved to be defective from the very day they were installed.

Organized by the Queens League of United Tenants (QLOUT), the Lakeside tenants refused to accept this unwarranted MCI increase and sued the DHCR. The DHCR threw its heavy guns into the battle by having state Attorney General Dennis Vacco defend its position against the tenants. This reflects the Pataki administration’s tendencies, in which state agencies have become progressively more anti-tenant, bending the law and their own regulations to justify it. However, Queens Supreme Court Justice Charles J. Thomas found in favor of the tenants and reversed the DHCR.

“The DHCR had early warning of trouble when its own inspectors found defective ‘new windows’ in eleven out of fifteen apartments they inspected. In spite of repeated tenant requests to expand the inspection to more apartments, the DHCR refused,” said QLOUT organizer Penny LaForest. “Just another typical case of DHCR ignoring its own information and regulations by rubber-stamping the landlord’s request for a rent increase.” Justice Thomas’ evidently concurred, as his ruling revoked the MCI increase due to evidence of widespread defects and the DHCR’s failure to conduct an adequate inspection.

QLOUT counsel Robert A. Katz—who represented the tenants, along with QLOUT board member Bernice Siegel and Seth A. Miller—has maintained for years that “tenants have been denied their due-process rights and ability to effectively object to MCI increases by the DHCR’s use of a landlord-friendly form.” Justice Thomas agreed with that position, as well and cited the use of the defective form to further reverse the DHCR’s erroneous decision. (DHCR has begun to replace that form due to Katz’s advocacy.)

“This decision certainly firms up a basic principle of landlord-tenant law, that tenants must be given an adequate and meaningful method to register their complaints and objections, and that in regard to MCIs, a major capital improvement must be checked for defects and proper workmanship by the agency’s inspectors,” said Miller. “When proper inspections point to and uncover defective conditions, MCI rent increases must be denied.” Renters have won their round—chalk one up for the good guys.