Tenant claimed that she was rent stabilized and complained that landlord refused to renew her lease. The DHCR ruled against tenant, who then filed an Article 78 appeal. The DHCR agreed to take the case back for...
Landlord sued to evict month-to-month tenant and asked the court to rule in its favor without a trial. The court ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant couldn't claim that the apartment was rent...
Tenant claimed that he was rent stabilized. The DRA dismissed tenant’s fair market rent appeal and found that tenant’s apartment was unregulated. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant claimed that the...
Tenant complained of rent overcharge. The DRA ruled against tenant, finding that the apartment had been deregulated due to high-rent vacancy destabilization before the base rent date that was four years before tenant...
Tenants claimed rent overcharge. The DRA ruled against tenants and dismissed their complaint because, in a prior 2015 decision, the DRA had ruled that the building was exempt from rent stabilization. Tenants appealed...
Landlord sued to evict tenant after his 2013 lease expired, claiming that tenant was unregulated. Tenant claimed that he was rent stabilized. But in 2014 tenant had sued landlord in State Supreme Court based on the...
Landlord asked the DHCR to determine a building’s rent regulatory status. Landlord claimed that the building was exempt from stabilization due to substantial rehabilitation. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants...
Tenant complained of rent overcharge. Landlord claimed that the apartment was deregulated. The DRA ruled for landlord and dismissed the complaint. Tenant appealed and lost. Landlord submitted proof of the four-year...
Tenant asked the DHCR to determine her rent regulatory status. She claimed that she was rent stabilized. Landlord claimed that the building was substantially rehabilitated after Jan. 1, 1974, without the benefit of...
Landlord applied in 2012 for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant’s rent-stabilized apartment. The DRA ruled against landlord because the building was receiving J-51 tax benefits at the relevant time...
