Missing Information on Deregulation Petition

LVT Number: 12486

Landlord applied in 1996 for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant's rent-stabilized apartment. The DRA ruled against landlord because landlord didn't fill out the portion of the deregulation petition that stated the lawful rent on the date the petition was signed. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DRA could have assumed that the rent charged on June 28, 1996, when the deregulation petition was signed, was the same as the rent charged on April 1, 1996. This information was provided on the next line of landlord's petition form. The DHCR ruled against landlord.

Landlord applied in 1996 for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant's rent-stabilized apartment. The DRA ruled against landlord because landlord didn't fill out the portion of the deregulation petition that stated the lawful rent on the date the petition was signed. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DRA could have assumed that the rent charged on June 28, 1996, when the deregulation petition was signed, was the same as the rent charged on April 1, 1996. This information was provided on the next line of landlord's petition form. The DHCR ruled against landlord. The lawful rent on the date the deregulation petition was signed is a basic and necessary piece of information since certain rent adjustments were possible after April 1. Landlord's failure to provide this information wasn't a minor defect in the petition.

David Frankel Realty: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. KH410022RO (2/26/98) [2-page document]

Downloads

KH410022RO.pdf110.97 KB