DHCR Bound by Prior Order

(Decision submitted by Jack Kutner of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services based on discontinuation of doorman service. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed, pointing out that eight years earlier the DRA had ruled that doorman service wasn't a required service at the building. The DHCR ruled against landlord, and landlord appealed. The court found it unreasonable that the DHCR didn't even acknowledge its prior ruling and relied on the unsworn statements of 10 tenants that there had been a doorman 15 years earlier. The court sent the case back to the DHCR for further fact-finding as to whether doorman service was provided prior to 1977.

2000 Properties Corp. v. DHCR: Index No. 22452/96 (12/3/96) (Sup. Ct. Kings; Kramer, J) [6-page document]