DHCR Issued Two Conflicting Orders

Facts: In 1987, the DRA ruled that tenant's building was rent stabilized because it was part of a horizontal multiple dwelling with the adjoining building. Prior landlord didn't appeal that decision. But when another tenant in that building complained of a rent overcharge, the DRA ruled later in 1988 that the building contained fewer than six units and, so, wasn't subject to rent stabilization. Tenant appealed, but the DHCR denied the PAR based on tenant's failure to respond to DHCR notices. In 2000, new landlord asked the DRA to rule on whether the building was rent stabilized. Landlord argued that the building wasn't part of a horizontal multiple dwelling. The DHCR ruled against landlord, finding that its 1987 decision was binding. Landlord appealed this ruling in court, claiming that the DHCR's decision was inconsistent with the 1988 decision and was unreasonable. The DHCR asked to take the case back for reconsideration. Tenants opposed landlord and the DHCR. The court ruled against landlord and the DHCR. Both appealed. Court: The DHCR wins. The existence of two opposing orders about the same building, with no explanation, was an irregularity in a vital matter. The DHCR should be allowed to take landlord's case back and reconsider the issues to resolve this inconsistency.

Sherwood 34 Assocs. v. DHCR: NYLJ, 10/9/03, p. 25, col. 6 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Tom, JP, Sullivan, Rosenberger, Gonzalez, JJ)