Landlord's Appeal of DHCR's Order Was Premature

Unregulated tenant complained of rent overcharge and improper deregulation of her apartment. The DRA ruled against tenant, who appealed and won. The DHCR ruled in its PAR decision that the apartment was rent stabilized because the DHCR couldn't modify or overturn a court determination that the unit was rent stabilized. The court had found that, at most, the legal rent would be $1,912 when tenant moved in, and therefore not subject to deregulation. The DHCR's order sent the case back to the DRA for further processing, including review of landlord's individual apartment improvement (IAI) costs.

Landlord then filed an Article 78 court appeal of DHCR's PAR decision. The court dismissed the Article 78 appeal as premature. The DHCR's remand order wasn't a final determination of the rights of the parties and whether the premises was subject to rent regulation. Review of an agency's non-final order should be limited to situations when it was needed to avoid irreparable harm without prompt judicial intervention. Otherwise, exhaustion of administrative remedies was needed before an Article 78 appeal could be filed.  Landlord's appeal was dismissed without prejudice to any future appeal of the DHCR's final administrative ruling.

Aghajun Holdings, LLC v. Visnauskas: Index No. 150726/2020, 2021 NY Slip Op 30523(U)(Sup. Ct. NY; 2/18/21; Edwards, J)