Tenants Belatedly Authorized Representative to Appeal Service Complaint Order

LVT Number: 17170

Facts: Fifty-one tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. The DRA ruled against tenants. One tenant filed a PAR to appeal the DRA's decision. Six other tenants signed a form authorizing the one tenant to represent them in filing the PAR. Tenant also attached a copy of the list of tenants who signed the original complaint. Tenant claimed that she also represented these tenants in the PAR filing. Landlord claimed that only those tenants who actually signed authorization for the PAR were entitled to relief.

Facts: Fifty-one tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. The DRA ruled against tenants. One tenant filed a PAR to appeal the DRA's decision. Six other tenants signed a form authorizing the one tenant to represent them in filing the PAR. Tenant also attached a copy of the list of tenants who signed the original complaint. Tenant claimed that she also represented these tenants in the PAR filing. Landlord claimed that only those tenants who actually signed authorization for the PAR were entitled to relief. The DHCR ruled that there was a reduction in services, and reduced rents only for the seven tenants who signed the PAR. Tenants appealed. The court sent the case back to the DHCR for further consideration. At that point, four years after tenants' PAR was filed, the DHCR gave other tenants a chance to sign the PAR. The DHCR then granted the rent reduction for all tenants who signed the PAR. Landlord appealed. Court: Landlord loses. The Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) permits a representative to file a PAR, provided that at the time of filing, the representative submits proof of authorization to act as the representative in the PAR filing. The DHCR considered the failure of the other tenants to sign the PAR at the time of filing an error that they could correct. The DHCR's interpretation of the RSC was reasonable. Notably, one judge disagreed with the court's decision, finding that the DHCR's ruling violated the RSC.

In re 427 W. 51st St. Owners Corp. v. DHCR: NYLJ, 2/23/04, p. 25, col. 5 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Nardelli, JP, Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner, JJ)