DHCR's Harassment Finding Upheld

May 31, 1998

LVT Number: 12359

Tenants complained of harassment by landlord. The DHCR ruled for tenants, finding that landlord engaged in a course of conduct intended to deprive tenants of their rights under rent stabilization. The DHCR also fined landlord $33,000. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DHCR's ruling was unreasonable and biased. The court and appeals court ruled against landlord. There was no proof that either the ALJ or the DHCR's enforcement attorney were biased against landlord.

Tenants complained of harassment by landlord. The DHCR ruled for tenants, finding that landlord engaged in a course of conduct intended to deprive tenants of their rights under rent stabilization. The DHCR also fined landlord $33,000. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DHCR's ruling was unreasonable and biased. The court and appeals court ruled against landlord. There was no proof that either the ALJ or the DHCR's enforcement attorney were biased against landlord. Landlord also claimed improper procedure because a transcript of the DHCR's hearing wasn't yet available when the DHCR's Commissioner ruled against landlord. But there's no requirement that the Commissioner must review transcripts before making a decision. And tape recordings of the hearing were available, along with the documents in the DHCR's record.

Mauro v. DHCR: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 4 (5/11/98) (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Sullivan, JP, Ellerin, Nardelli, Rubin, Mazzarelli, JJ)

Topics

More like this