Landlord's Application Before DHCR Is Stopped

Facts: Tenants of Mitchell-Lama housing complex sued landlord and DHCR to stop processing of landlord's application to determine if the buildings in the complex would be subject to the Rent Stabilization Law if landlord bought out of the Mitchell-Lama program. Landlord argued that since the buildings were constructed after Jan. 1, 1974, they should be exempt from rent stabilization once the Mitchell-Lama status was dissolved. Tenants claimed the buildings should be subject to rent regulation after the buyout. Some certificates of occupancy were issued before Jan. 1, 1974, and in the past, tenants had gotten lease riders stating that they would be protected by rent stabilization. Landlord claimed that the court didn't have the authority to rule on whether the buildings should be rent stabilized after being removed from the Mitchell-Lama program. The DHCR claimed that the issue was already before the agency, and tenants hadn't brought a proper court action to stop it. Tenants asked the court for a delay, pending a final ruling in the court case. Court: Tenants win. The court could consider the issue of whether the buildings were rent stabilized. The issue didn't require special expertise by the DHCR. And the fact that the DHCR case was started before the court action didn't stop the court from considering tenants' claims. Some of the buildings in the complex were built before January 1974. So whether or not the complex was a horizontal multiple dwelling, the older buildings were probably subject to rent stabilization. Before a final ruling was made, it was more fair to protect the tenants by stopping the DHCR proceeding.

Davis v. Waterside Housing Co.: NYLJ, p. 27, col. 4 (10/1/99) (Sup. Ct. NY; Omansky, J)