NYS DHCR Office of Rent Administration, Major Capital Improvement (OM) PAR Orders and Opinions (April-June 2026)

1
It is not a policy of DHCR to reopen a previously granted MCI solely to apply the full provisions of HSTPA: see Docket
MTI 10002RP, modifying an Administrator's order issued after a reopening wherein the only change to the previously
granted rent increase was to fully apply the provisions of HSTPA. However, while the MTI I 0002RP order established
!hat the previously granied rent increase was not subject to the full provisions of HSTPA, the order did contain a notation
in fanning the parties that Section 26-511.1 (a)(8) of the Rent Stabilization Law is applicable to all previously granted rent
increases issued after June 16, 2012 and before June 16, 2019. Thus, in issuing the HN410003RK order in the case at
hand, the Administrator properly omitted any language applying the full provisions of HSTPA to the previously granted
rent increase but properly included the infonnational paragraph regarding the applicability of Section 26-5 I I. l(a)(8).

2
In Regina Metropolilan Co., LLC v. DHCR, 35 N.Y.3d 332,365 (2020) (the case cited by the owner in support of this
claim), the Court of Appeals stated that a statute which affects only '"the propriety of prospective relief ... has no
potentially problematic retroactive effect." Subsequent to Regina, in Building and Realry Inst. of Westchester & P111na111
Counties. Inc.,,_ New York (2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174535), the court stated that "the MCI changes in the HSTPA make
it so that increases shall be collectible prospectively and thus (do no!) result in impennissibly retroactive legislation,"
2