DHCR to Decide Coverage Issue

July 31, 2000

LVT Number: 14306

Tenants of Mitchell-Lama housing complex sued landlord in response to landlord's attempt to remove buildings from Mitchell-Lama coverage. Tenants claimed that if buildings were no longer under Mitchell-Lama, they were subject to rent stabilization. There was a legal question as to whether Mitchell-Lama housing could be converted to rent-stabilized housing. But there was also a question of whether construction was completed before Jan. 1, 1974. If construction was completed on or after Jan. 1, 1974, the buildings would be exempt from rent stabilization in any event.

Tenants of Mitchell-Lama housing complex sued landlord in response to landlord's attempt to remove buildings from Mitchell-Lama coverage. Tenants claimed that if buildings were no longer under Mitchell-Lama, they were subject to rent stabilization. There was a legal question as to whether Mitchell-Lama housing could be converted to rent-stabilized housing. But there was also a question of whether construction was completed before Jan. 1, 1974. If construction was completed on or after Jan. 1, 1974, the buildings would be exempt from rent stabilization in any event. Landlord claimed that the DHCR should decide the coverage issue, not the court. The court ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed and won. Although either a court or the DHCR had the authority to decide this rent stabilization coverage issue, the DHCR had more expertise on the issue and should rule on the issue instead of the court.

Davis v. Waterside Hous. Co.: NYLJ, 7/17/00, p. 22, col. 1 (App. Div.1 Dept.; Sullivan, PJ, Nardelli, Ellerin, Wallach, JJ)

Topics

More like this