Second Case Terminated Since Issue Decided in Prior Proceeding

In 2007, landlord applied for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant’s apartment. The DRA terminated the proceeding because the apartment was deregulated by a prior DRA order that wasn’t appealed. Tenant appealed the second decision concerning the 2007 application, claiming that he did file a PAR against the prior order. The DHCR ruled against tenant. The DRA’s order terminating landlord’s 2007 luxury deregulation application didn’t deregulate the apartment. So tenant wasn’t an aggrieved party and had no right to challenge the DRA’s order. Tenant correctly stated that he filed a PAR against the DRA’s prior order and the issue of whether the apartment was properly deregulated would be addressed in that PAR proceeding.

Savage: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. WL410026RT (10/7/09) [2-pg. doc.]