Tenants Claim Answer to Deregulation Application Filed on Time

LVT Number: 12118

(Decision submitted by Samuel Himmelstein of the Manhattan law firm of Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben & Donoghue, attorneys for the tenants.) Facts: Landlord filed an application for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant's apartment in June 1995. The DHCR mailed a notice to tenant on Aug. 18, 1995, advising tenant that he must submit an answer with income verification information to the DHCR within 60 days or a deregulation order would be issued. On May 2, 1996, the DHCR issued a deregulation order based on tenant's failure to provide income verification information.

(Decision submitted by Samuel Himmelstein of the Manhattan law firm of Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben & Donoghue, attorneys for the tenants.) Facts: Landlord filed an application for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant's apartment in June 1995. The DHCR mailed a notice to tenant on Aug. 18, 1995, advising tenant that he must submit an answer with income verification information to the DHCR within 60 days or a deregulation order would be issued. On May 2, 1996, the DHCR issued a deregulation order based on tenant's failure to provide income verification information. Tenant appealed, claiming he'd submitted the information on time. He submitted copies of his answer, dated Sept. 19, 1995, and a sworn statement that he'd mailed the answer to the DHCR on that date. Tenant also submitted copies of his 1993 and 1994 tax returns, which showed income of less than $40,000 for each of those years. The DHCR ruled against tenant because he didn't submit proof of mailing or otherwise show ''good cause'' to overturn the default ruling. Tenant appealed. Court: Tenant wins. The DHCR's 1995 instructions to tenant, which were included with the answer form, stated only that the answer may be hand-delivered or sent by regular, certified, or registered mail. There was a more detailed instruction that if anyone used a private postage meter and the DHCR didn't receive tenant's answer within 60 days, then tenant would have to submit other adequate proof of mailing. However, there was no requirement that tenant provide proof of mailing. In later years, the DHCR changed its instructions to state that ''tenant is strongly advised to retain proof of service of the answer'' through either a date-stamped copy, a certificate of mailing, or certified-mail receipt. This tended to show that the DHCR realized there was a problem with its prior instructions. The case was sent back to the DHCR for further processing.

Doyno v. DHCR: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 2 (1/14/98) (Sup. Ct. NY; Friedman, J)