DHCR Reasonably Denied Tenant's Lease Renewal Complaint

Tenant complained to the DHCR that landlord failed to offer him a rent-stabilized renewal lease on the same terms and conditions as his original lease. The DRA ruled for tenant, but the DHCR later granted landlord's PAR and dismissed the complaint. Tenant then filed an Article 78 court appeal of the DHCR's decision.

The court ruled against tenant, who appealed further and lost. The appeals court noted that it already ruled in a separate case commenced by another tenant in the same building that the DHCR reasonably determined that it didn't have jurisdiction to consider whether landlord failed to offer a renewal lease on the same terms and conditions because the legal rent for the apartment was set under a regulatory agreement with a government agency other than the DHCR. The regulatory agreement, rather than the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, was the source of the apartment's rent regulation. The DHCR's decision wasn't arbitrary and capricious, a violation of law, or a failure to perform a duty placed upon the DHCR by law. 

Tsevilsky v. DHCR: Index No. 100991/23, App. No. 3515, Case No. 2024-04005, 2025 NY Slip Op 00282 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 1/16/25; Webber, JP, Gesmer, Shulman, Pitt-Burke, Higgitt, JJ)