Court Can't Rule on DHCR Policy Statement

December 1, 1994

LVT Number: 9295

Landlord sued to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent, and tenant claimed a breach of the warranty of habitability. The court ordered a trial on the issue of whether it should enforce DHCR Policy Statement 92-1, which lets the DHCR freeze the rent of an apartment if landlord hasn't paid the $10 rent-stabilization fee. The policy statement also gives landlords 60 days to pay the fees, after being notified that they haven't been paid. Landlord appealed, and the appeals court ruled for landlord.

Landlord sued to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent, and tenant claimed a breach of the warranty of habitability. The court ordered a trial on the issue of whether it should enforce DHCR Policy Statement 92-1, which lets the DHCR freeze the rent of an apartment if landlord hasn't paid the $10 rent-stabilization fee. The policy statement also gives landlords 60 days to pay the fees, after being notified that they haven't been paid. Landlord appealed, and the appeals court ruled for landlord. The court can't rule on the enforceability of a DHCR policy statement when the DHCR isn't a party to the case. And the court had previously ruled that the DHCR has authority to issue policy statements, as long as they aren't unreasonable or irrational.

New Dawn Sunrise L.R. v. Ocasio: NYLJ, p. 21, col. 3 (11/9/94) (App. T. 1 Dept.; Parness, JP, McCooe, Glen, JJ)

Topics

More like this