Coverage Issue Decided in Prior Case

April 30, 2006

LVT Number: 18852

Tenant complained of a rent overcharge. The DHCR ruled for tenant. Landlord appealed, claiming that the building had been substantially rehabilitated after Jan. 1, 1974, and so was exempt from rent regulation. The court and appeals court ruled against landlord. In a prior case, the DHCR had ruled that the building hadn't been substantially rehabilitated. Landlord had appealed that case to the court and lost. Landlord took no further appeal. So the question of rent stabilization coverage had already been decided in the prior case. Landlord couldn't raise that issue again in this case.

Tenant complained of a rent overcharge. The DHCR ruled for tenant. Landlord appealed, claiming that the building had been substantially rehabilitated after Jan. 1, 1974, and so was exempt from rent regulation. The court and appeals court ruled against landlord. In a prior case, the DHCR had ruled that the building hadn't been substantially rehabilitated. Landlord had appealed that case to the court and lost. Landlord took no further appeal. So the question of rent stabilization coverage had already been decided in the prior case. Landlord couldn't raise that issue again in this case.

504 11th St. Corp. v. DHCR: NYLJ, 4/24/06, p. 35, col. 2 (App. Div. 2 Dept.; Miller, JP, Spolzino, Lifson, Dillon, JJ)

Topics

More like this