DHCR Can't Change Its Ruling in Demolition Case

Landlord applied for permission to demolish rent-stabilized building that had one remaining tenant. The DHCR ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed, claiming that the DHCR's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable because the work landlord planned to do wasn't a full demolition and therefore shouldn't qualify for the DHCR's approval. In response to tenant's appeal, the court ordered the DHCR to take the case back for further review. Landlord then appealed. The DHCR said that it now agreed that it should review the case further and that its initial ruling was improper. Landlord argued that the DHCR had properly ruled the first time that the gut work to the four-story building proposed by landlord qualified as a demolition. Landlord's application sought to remove much of the building facade, rear wall, roof, and entire interior of the building. The appeals court ruled for landlord. The court said that the DHCR was simply seeking a second chance to reach a different decision, without sufficient reason.

Peckham v. Calogero: NYLJ, 7/2/08, p. 26, col. 1 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Mazzarelli, JP, Saxe, Gonzalez, Buckley, Acosta, JJ)