Judge Sheldon Halprin
In nine nonpayment actions, petitioner landlord moved for partial summary judgment dismissing tenants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Prior building owner applied for a rehabilitation loan from the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) in 1991. Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) issued a rent reduction order (RRO) for the building’s tenants for owner’s failure to maintain various services in 1993. HPD issued an order asserting the multiple dwelling was rehabilitated in 1994, and set legal regulated rents, without referring to the RRO. The court questioned if the HPD order superceded and overrode the DHCR RRO. The court found landlord’s conclusions were meritless, stating the HPD and DHCR orders are distinct and separate from each other, and the issues raised before each agency were different from one another. The DHCR RRO related to collectible rent, not legal regulated rent, and the HPD order did not establish a new initial rent, but an increase on the current regulated rent. The collectible rent had no bearing on the legal regulated rent, and an owner was not permitted to collect increases while an RRO was in effect, thus landlord’s motion was denied.
