DHCR Properly Reconsidered Decision

November 1, 2001

LVT Number: 15382

Tenant claimed that he was rent controlled. The DRA ruled that tenant was, instead, rent stabilized. No appeal was filed, but 95 days later, the DRA issued a new order, finding that the apartment was rent controlled. Landlord appealed, claming that the DRA violated its own Policy Statement 91-5 by reconsidering its first decision so long after it was issued. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed and lost. The DHCR may reconsider an incorrect decision based on an ''irregularity in a vital matter,'' and there is no time limit for doing so.

Tenant claimed that he was rent controlled. The DRA ruled that tenant was, instead, rent stabilized. No appeal was filed, but 95 days later, the DRA issued a new order, finding that the apartment was rent controlled. Landlord appealed, claming that the DRA violated its own Policy Statement 91-5 by reconsidering its first decision so long after it was issued. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed and lost. The DHCR may reconsider an incorrect decision based on an ''irregularity in a vital matter,'' and there is no time limit for doing so. And the DRA's second decision wasn't arbitrary or unreasonable.

Regal Homes, Inc. v. DHCR: NYLJ, 10/17/01, p. 20, col. 5 (App. Div.2 Dept.; Krausman, JP, Miller, Schmidt, Crane, JJ)

Topics

More like this