DHCR Unreasonably Ignored Landlord's Proof of Doormen's Hours

(Decision submitted by Karen Schwartz-Sidrane of the Hewlett, N.Y., law firm of Sidrane & Schwartz-Sidrane, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Facts: Tenants complained of a reduction in buildingwide services. They claimed problems with doorman service, including frequent absences. Landlord claimed that there was no problem with service, that it employed two doormen, and that doorman service was from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. on weekends. The DRA asked landlord for additional information in the form of payroll records and time sheets for the past six months. Landlord responded that the doormen didn't keep time sheets, and landlord submitted a doorman payroll report for the six months in question. Landlord later also submitted a log book used by the doormen, as well as sworn statements from the doormen specifying their hours. The DRA ruled for tenants, finding that doorman services were not maintained. The DRA stated that landlord didn't submit evidence needed to determine whether doormen worked the required hours. Landlord requested reconsideration and appealed. The DHCR denied landlord's requests and ruled against landlord on its PAR. Landlord then brought an Article 78 proceeding, claiming that the DHCR's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. Court: Landlord wins. The DRA's decision didn't state the reason for finding that doorman services were not maintained, but only noted that landlord didn't submit requested information. The DHCR's later decision and response to landlord's requests for reconsideration also didn't explain the agency's reasons for its decision. Some tenants complained that doormen were not working their designated hours. Landlord insisted that they were. Landlord submitted detailed records documenting the payroll and doormen's hours. The DHCR didn't make any ruling that tenants' evidence proved something different. The DHCR's decision was unreasonable and was revoked.

1829 Realty Assocs. v. DHCR: Index No. 10298/06 (3/5/07) (Sup. Ct. Kings; Ruchelsman, J) [8-pg. doc.]