DHCR Properly Reinstated Tenant's Complaint

July 31, 1993

LVT Number: 8091

Tenant complained of a rent overcharge. The DRA ruled for landlord because landlord had previously signed an agreement with the New York State attorney general resolving any rent overcharge issue concerning tenant's apartment. Tenant asked the DHCR to reconsider the case. The DHCR reopened the complaint based on an ``irregularity in vital matters,'' and landlord appealed. The court found that the DHCR was authorized by the Rent Stabilization Code to reopen the case. Neither the DHCR nor tenant had signed the agreement between landlord and the attorney general.

Tenant complained of a rent overcharge. The DRA ruled for landlord because landlord had previously signed an agreement with the New York State attorney general resolving any rent overcharge issue concerning tenant's apartment. Tenant asked the DHCR to reconsider the case. The DHCR reopened the complaint based on an ``irregularity in vital matters,'' and landlord appealed. The court found that the DHCR was authorized by the Rent Stabilization Code to reopen the case. Neither the DHCR nor tenant had signed the agreement between landlord and the attorney general. Also, the DHCR had actually assigned two different docket numbers to tenant's complaint, and issued conflicting decisions. There were enough irregularities for the case to be reopened and reexamined.

Argo Corp. v. NYS DHCR: NYLJ, p. 24, col. 5 (7/28/93) (Sup. Ct. Queens; Milano, J)

Topics

More like this