Luxury Deregulation Granted Based on Tenant's Default

Landlord applied for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant's apartment in 2007. The DRA terminated the proceeding in November 2008, finding that the apartment had been deregulated in an order issued in September 2008 in connection with a prior 2006 luxury deregulation proceeding. The DRA had found that tenant didn't appeal the prior DHCR order. Tenant appealed, claiming that he had filed an appeal against the prior order. The DHCR terminated tenant's PAR without a ruling because tenant had in fact filed an appeal against the prior order and that case was pending. Landlord then requested reconsideration of its 2007 application. The DRA reopened the 2007 case, noting that landlord's 2006 application had ultimately been denied because tenant's income didn't exceed the deregulation threshold. Tenant answered with a number of objections but claimed he hadn't yet filed his 2006 and 2007 income tax returns. Tenant didn't submit copies of any DTF extension request. The DRA ruled for landlord based on tenant's failure to submit requested information. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant didn't  respond to landlord's 2007 application in a timely manner, and his delay wasn't de minimis. Tenant didn't show good cause for his delay but instead seemed to engage in delay tactics, including court litigation against landlord. The DRA properly found the tenant to be in default.

Savage: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. AT410028RT (5/31/13) [14-pg. doc.]