Tenants Can't Get Fees Before DHCR Decides Case

Facts: Landlord's 39-unit building was damaged by fire. As a result, HPD declared that the building violated the Housing Maintenance Code. In 1986 tenants sued landlord in civil court to get repairs made. Landlord then sued tenants in state supreme court to try to bar tenants from bringing their court action. Landlord claimed he wanted to demolish the building, because the cost to rehabilitate it would be greater than the building's assessed value. Since all the apartments in the building were rent-controlled or rent-stabilized, the DHCR asked the court to intervene in the case and claimed that the DHCR, not the court, should decide the demolition issue. The trial court and appeals court ruled for landlord and against the DHCR. But the court of appeals reversed and ruled against landlord. The state's highest court found that the DHCR should decide the demolition issue. Tenants thereafter asked the supreme court for attorney's fees, since landlord had lost the case he started there. Court: Tenants lose. Under their leases, landlord could collect attorney's fees in the case of a default by tenants under a lease provision. So, in turn, tenants could recover attorney's fees. But this case didn't arise out of any lease violations. In addition, attorney's fees in such cases should only go to the party who ``truly prevails.'' Since there was no decision on the merits of landlord's demolition application, tenants hadn't actually won at this point.

Sohn v. Calderon: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 1 (9/20/95) (Sup. Ct. NY; York, J)