Court Dismisses Tenants' Lawsuit Against DHCR Claiming Negligence

Tenants sued the DHCR, claiming that they intended to sue the DHCR for negligence. They started the lawsuit claiming to need pre-action discovery from the DHCR to identify the specific DHCR Records Access Officers or supervisory officers involved in the alleged registration alteration, and to preserve the relevant evidence from destruction. Tenants said that the DHCR violated their rights "by negligently allowing" their landlord and/or its representatives to fraudulently amend DHCR rent registration history records to make it falsely appear that tenants' apartment was legally removed from rent stabilization for a non-existent improvement. In particular, tenants claimed that between 2009 and 2017, the registration entry for the year 2005 was altered to add the notation "IMPRVMT" when in fact no improvement was ever made to the apartment.

The court denied tenants' request for discovery because they failed to allege that the court would have jurisdiction over the contemplated action. The court in fact stated that it wouldn't have jurisdiction over a negligence action seeking monetary damages against the DHCR, which is a state agency, because only the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction for money damages against state agencies. 

The court also found no merit to tenants' claim of negligence by the DHCR. The mere allegation that the notation "IMPRVMT" was added to the 2005 DHCR Rent History wasn't alone sufficient to create an inference of negligence on the DHCR's part. And tenants already had the information necessary to file a complaint against the DHCR and can seek additional information through discovery after starting a case. Tenants also failed to make any factual allegations suggesting that the information sought was subject to imminent destruction that would make preservation prior to commencement of a plenary action needed. 

Kamal v. DHCR: Index No. 160385/2023, 2025 NY Slip Op 30629(U)(Sup. Ct. NY; 2/24/25; Ally, J)