Tenants Didn't Prove They Mailed Answer to Deregulation Application

LVT Number: 11546

(Decision submitted by Jeffrey Turkel of the Manhattan law firm of Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied in 1995 for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenants' apartment. The DRA ruled for landlord based on tenants' failure to answer landlord's petition. Tenants appealed, claiming they had filed an answer on September 19, 1995. They attached a copy of their answer to their PAR. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Tenants submitted no proof of the filing. They claimed they had filed their answer by regular mail.

(Decision submitted by Jeffrey Turkel of the Manhattan law firm of Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied in 1995 for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenants' apartment. The DRA ruled for landlord based on tenants' failure to answer landlord's petition. Tenants appealed, claiming they had filed an answer on September 19, 1995. They attached a copy of their answer to their PAR. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Tenants submitted no proof of the filing. They claimed they had filed their answer by regular mail. But the DHCR didn't receive tenants' answer and there was no proof of mailing.

Doyno: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. KE410085RT (2/3/97) [3-page document]

Downloads

KE410085RT.pdf210.31 KB