Tenant Didn't Respond to Deregulation Application on Time

LVT Number: 12045

Facts: Landlord filed petition in 1994 for high-income/high-rent deregulation of tenant's apartment based on Oct. 1, 1993, rent of over $2,000 and claimed household income of $250,000 or more for 1992 and 1993. The DRA's notice to tenants informed them that failure to answer landlord's petition within 60 days would result in deregulation by default. Tenants didn't answer, and the DRA issued an order of deregulation in 1995. Tenants didn't file a PAR within 35 days of the order. Instead, they asked for reconsideration and filed an untimely PAR in 1996.

Facts: Landlord filed petition in 1994 for high-income/high-rent deregulation of tenant's apartment based on Oct. 1, 1993, rent of over $2,000 and claimed household income of $250,000 or more for 1992 and 1993. The DRA's notice to tenants informed them that failure to answer landlord's petition within 60 days would result in deregulation by default. Tenants didn't answer, and the DRA issued an order of deregulation in 1995. Tenants didn't file a PAR within 35 days of the order. Instead, they asked for reconsideration and filed an untimely PAR in 1996. Tenants showed that their income was below the $250,000 threshold. They claimed they hadn't received landlord's deregulation petition because they were abroad for much of 1994 and 1995. But tenants didn't deny receiving the deregulation order and didn't explain why they didn't file a PAR on time. The DHCR denied tenants' request for reconsideration and dismissed their PAR for not being on time. Tenants appealed and this time claimed they never received the DRA's order. They claimed their doorman had signed the return receipt for the certified mail copy of the deregulation order and that it was then lost. The court ruled for tenants, finding that receipt of the order by tenants' doorman wasn't sufficient notice to tenants and so they weren't bound by the 35-day appeal period. The court sent the case back to the DHCR for further processing in light of tenants' income information. The DHCR appealed. Court: Tenants lose. Tenants' PAR was properly dismissed for not being on time. The Rent Stabilization Code clearly provides for filing or mailing of a PAR within 35 days of issuance of a DRA order. Tenants' denial of receipt of the DRA's order was insufficient to overcome the presumption of receipt established by DHCR's proof of mailing. Notably, tenants didn't claim nonreceipt of the order in their untimely PAR.

Dowling v. Holland: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 5 (12/22/97) (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Wallach, JP, Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli, Colabella, JJ)