DHCR Grants Tenant's Reconsideration Request

Tenant complained that landlord didn't renew his rent-stabilized lease. Landlord claimed that he didn't have to renew tenant's lease, since he'd served tenant a notice of intention of nonrenewal because landlord intended to occupy the apartment. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant's complaint was conditionally dismissed. Tenant appealed, filing both a PAR and a request for reconsideration based on error. Tenant claimed landlord's termination notice was improper. Tenant's PAR was dismissed as untimely, but the DHCR reopened the case. Tenant submitted a copy of a court order showing that tenant's lease expired on May 1, 1992. Landlord's termination notice incorrectly stated that the lease expired May 31. The termination notice also wasn't served within the proper window period before May 1. Reconsidering all this, the DRA ruled for tenant. Landlord appealed, claiming that the case shouldn't have been reopened. The DHCR ruled against landlord. There's no time limit for filing requests for reconsideration. The DRA's initial failure to examine tenant's lease to determine whether tenant had been timely served with the termination notice was an irregularity in a vital matter. Tenant didn't raise a new issue or introduce new evidence in his request for reconsideration.

229 West 71st Street, Apt. 2F: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. HF 410032-RO (12/1/93) [4-page document]