Court Transfers Rent Overcharge and Improper Deregulation Claims to DHCR

(Decision submitted by attorney Michael Littman of the Rockville Centre law firm of Sidrane, Schwartz-Sidrane, Perinbasekar & Littman, LLP, who represented the landlord.)

Tenant sued landlord, claiming that his landlord improperly deregulated the apartment and that he had been overcharged. Landlord denied tenant's claim and asked the court to dismiss the case. The court decided that the DHCR should decide the claims raised by tenant. While noting that the court, as well as the DHCR, had authority to decide tenant's claims, the court found that the DHCR had "primary jurisdiction" and should decide the issues based on its expertise in rent regulation. The court referred landlord's motion to dismiss the complaint to the DHCR to issue a written report determining: (a) whether landlord willfully, wrongfully, and/or fraudulently engaged in a scheme to improperly deregulate tenant's apartment; (b) whether tenant's apartment was rent stabilized; (c) whether tenant was entitled to a rent-stabilized lease and, if so, the date of the lease term and amount of rent to be set; and (d) whether tenant was entitled to recover any rent overcharge refund and/or other penalties. Once the DHCR issued a report, either landlord or tenant could ask the court to confirm or reject the DHCR report. In the meantime, the court case was stayed.

Hopkins v. West 137th 601, LLC: Index No. 150435/2016 (Sup. Ct. NY; 12/3/18; Freed, J) [5-pg. doc.]