DHCR Won't Rule on Whether Apartment Was Decontrolled

Landlord asked the DHCR to rule on whether tenants were subject to rent regulation. Landlord claimed that it took over the building in April 2006 and believed that tenant's apartment was vacant then. Lease records showed that a prior tenant's lease expired on Oct. 31, 2005, at a monthly rent of either $1,891 or $1,955, but landlord said the apartment became vacant in 2004. Landlord learned that new tenants moved into the apartment in September 2004 without a written lease, and hadn't paid rent since then. Landlord also said it intended to start court proceedings but wanted the DHCR ruling before it did so. In response, tenants claimed that they hadn't paid any rent to landlord and didn't owe landlord any rent. One of them also said she no longer lived in the apartment. The DRA dismissed the case without making a ruling. Landlord appealed and lost. The courts and the DHCR can rule on claims of high-rent vacancy deregulation. The Rent Stabilization Law and Code don't require landlord to first seek an agency ruling on the apartment's status before bringing an eviction proceeding or filing rent registrations based on landlord's belief that an apartment was deregulated. Usually the DHCR doesn't rule on whether an apartment was vacancy deregulated unless the question is raised in a tenant overcharge complaint.

Midas Management Assoc., Inc.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. VI420024RO (12/19/07) [3-pg. doc.]