DHCR Properly Reconsidered Overcharge Finding Based on Irregularity in a Vital Matter

March 19, 2018

LVT Number: #28264

Tenant complained to the DHCR of rent overcharge and challenged the rent set for his apartment by HPD. The DHCR ruled for tenant but later ruled against another tenant in the same building who made an identical claim. The DHCR then reopened tenant's case for reconsideration based on its second ruling in the other case, and ruled against tenant. Tenant filed an Article 78 appeal, claiming that the DHCR's decision to reopen his case was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court ruled for tenant, but the DHCR appealed and won. The DHCR properly reopened tenant's rent challenge.

Tenant complained to the DHCR of rent overcharge and challenged the rent set for his apartment by HPD. The DHCR ruled for tenant but later ruled against another tenant in the same building who made an identical claim. The DHCR then reopened tenant's case for reconsideration based on its second ruling in the other case, and ruled against tenant. Tenant filed an Article 78 appeal, claiming that the DHCR's decision to reopen his case was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court ruled for tenant, but the DHCR appealed and won. The DHCR properly reopened tenant's rent challenge. While the DHCR had initially ruled for tenant, its later denial of another tenant's complaint in the same building was an irregularity in a vital matter that warranted reopening tenant's rent overcharge complaint upon notice to both sides.

Catala v. DHCR: 67 NYS3d 844, 2018 NY Slip Op 00911 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 2/8/18; Friedman, JP, Sweeny, Kahn, Gesmer, Singh, JJ)

Topics

More like this