Tenant complained of a rent overcharge. The DHCR ruled against tenant, finding no overcharge. Tenant appealed by an Article 78 proceeding, claiming that the DHCR’s decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. Later, tenant made motions, requesting that the Supreme Court delay a housing court action against tenant by landlord. Tenant also asked the court for a default judgment against the DHCR for failing to answer tenant’s Article 78 petition.
The court ruled against tenant. Tenant delivered court papers improperly. First, his affidavits of service stated that he performed the delivery of the court papers himself and that he wasn’t a “party to the proceeding.” This was incorrect. Tenant was a party to the proceeding. Therefore, under court rules, he wasn’t allowed to deliver the court papers. A person not a party to the proceeding must deliver the papers. Second, tenant delivered the Article 78 petition to the DHCR and to the state attorney general’s office by regular mail. The law requires that these papers be delivered in person to the agencies’ offices.
For these reasons, tenant’s Article 78 petition and motion to stay the housing court proceeding were dismissed. The court also noted that there was no merit to tenant’s claim. The DHCR correctly found that there was no overcharge.
Gonzalez v. DHCR: NYLJ, 11/12/08, p. 27, col. 3 (Sup. Ct. Queens; Markey, J)
