DHCR Didn't Give Landlord Notice of Order

January 1, 1998

LVT Number: 12023

(Decision submitted by Patrick Munson of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on installation of a boiler-burner. The DRA ruled against landlord. Landlord didn't receive the DRA's order until almost a year later and filed a PAR within 35 days of receiving notice. The DHCR ruled for landlord. The DRA didn't serve the order on the building's registered landlord. So landlord's late PAR was considered on time since it was filed within 35 days of receipt of the DRA's order.

(Decision submitted by Patrick Munson of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on installation of a boiler-burner. The DRA ruled against landlord. Landlord didn't receive the DRA's order until almost a year later and filed a PAR within 35 days of receiving notice. The DHCR ruled for landlord. The DRA didn't serve the order on the building's registered landlord. So landlord's late PAR was considered on time since it was filed within 35 days of receipt of the DRA's order. The DHCR also ruled for landlord and granted the MCI application.

Rottenstein & Golowa, Ltd.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. DI230137RO (9/19/97) [5-page document]

Downloads

DI230137RO.pdf325.57 KB

Topics

More like this