Eviction Delayed While DHCR Decides Coverage Issue

Facts: Landlord advised tenant that she was no longer rent-stabilized because the building's J-51 tax benefit status had ended. Tenant complained to the DHCR, claiming she was still subject to rent stabilization. Landlord then sued to evict tenant. Shortly thereafter, the DHCR dismissed tenant's complaint, stating that the issue would be decided in housing court. The court in turn denied tenant's request for a delay of the eviction action based on the pending DHCR complaint, since DHCR had dismissed her complaint. Tenant then filed a PAR and again asked for delay of the eviction action. Landlord and tenant signed a stipulation agreeing that the DHCR would decide the issue. The court ruled that it would delay further ruling until the DHCR made a decision. Landlord was given permission to continue with the case if DHCR hadn't decided the PAR within a specific time period. Before the time limit was up, the DHCR ruled against tenant, finding that landlord had properly notified tenant in her leases that J-51 benefits would eventually run out. Tenant then appealed the DHCR's decision in court and asked for continued delay of the eviction action. The case was sent back to the DHCR for further investigation. The housing court then denied tenant's request for further delay of the eviction action. Tenant appealed, claiming that the eviction action shouldn't go forward until the DHCR made a final ruling on whether she was rent-stabilized. Court: Tenant wins. Since tenant's DHCR complaint was filed before the eviction action was brought, it was proper to delay the eviction action. The DHCR's final decision was also necessary to determine the result of the eviction action, and landlord and tenant had agreed that DHCR should decide the issue. Landlord could ask the court to continue with the case if the DHCR didn't decide its case within six months.

Pamela Equities Corp. v. McSween: NYLJ, p. 27, col. 2 (4/16/97) (Civ. Ct. NY; Hoffman, J)