DHCR Properly Vacated Order

January 1, 1995

LVT Number: 9380

Tenant complained of a rent overcharge, and the DRA dismissed the complaint. Two years later, the DHCR reopened the case and vacated the DRA's order, ruling that tenant had been overcharged. Landlord appealed, and the court dismissed landlord's case. Landlord appealed again, arguing that the DHCR wasn't authorized to reopen the case so long after the original DRA's order. The appeals court upheld the DHCR's overcharge finding. The DHCR has the authority to reopen a case if the original DRA's ruling was based on an irregularity in a vital matter.

Tenant complained of a rent overcharge, and the DRA dismissed the complaint. Two years later, the DHCR reopened the case and vacated the DRA's order, ruling that tenant had been overcharged. Landlord appealed, and the court dismissed landlord's case. Landlord appealed again, arguing that the DHCR wasn't authorized to reopen the case so long after the original DRA's order. The appeals court upheld the DHCR's overcharge finding. The DHCR has the authority to reopen a case if the original DRA's ruling was based on an irregularity in a vital matter. The irregularity in this case was that neither the DHCR nor tenant had agreed to landlord's ''assurance of discontinuance,'' which was the basis for the DRA's decision. Also, there's no time limit on the DHCR's right to reopen a case.

Argo Corp. v. DHCR: NYLJ, p. 30, col. 3 (12/16/94) (App. Div. 2 Dept.; Copertino, JP, Pizzuto, Santucci, Florio, JJ)

Topics

More like this