Spike in Tenant’s Income Due to Business Dissolution

LVT Number: #26277

Landlord applied in 2011 for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant’s rent-stabilized apartment. Tenant admitted that in 2009 and 2010 her annual income was more than $175,000. But she said that this was the result of the liquidation of a family business and that her accountant made a mistake by not allocating the income differently. Her usual annual income was below the deregulation threshold. Tenant also pointed out that she was 84 years old, had lived in the apartment for 44 years, and the deregulation would cause her extreme hardship. The DRA ruled for landlord.

Landlord applied in 2011 for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant’s rent-stabilized apartment. Tenant admitted that in 2009 and 2010 her annual income was more than $175,000. But she said that this was the result of the liquidation of a family business and that her accountant made a mistake by not allocating the income differently. Her usual annual income was below the deregulation threshold. Tenant also pointed out that she was 84 years old, had lived in the apartment for 44 years, and the deregulation would cause her extreme hardship. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed and lost. There is no exception to or exclusion from luxury deregulation based on age or hardship. And the only income that mattered was the reported federal adjusted gross income for 2009 and 2010. 

 

 

 

Phelan: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. CU410028RT (5/26/15) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

CU410028RT.pdf1.46 MB