Tenant Didn't Answer DHCR Deregulation Notice on Time

June 30, 1996

LVT Number: 10734

(Decision submitted by Jeffrey Turkel of the Manhattan law firm of Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for destabilization of tenant's apartment based on high-rent/high-income deregulation rules. The DRA ruled for landlord because tenant didn't respond to landlord's application. Tenant appealed, arguing that his late response should be accepted by the DHCR. The DHCR ruled against tenant. The DHCR notified tenant of landlord's application on Aug. 4, 1994. Tenant's response was due on Oct. 3, 1994. No response was received until Nov. 30.

(Decision submitted by Jeffrey Turkel of the Manhattan law firm of Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for destabilization of tenant's apartment based on high-rent/high-income deregulation rules. The DRA ruled for landlord because tenant didn't respond to landlord's application. Tenant appealed, arguing that his late response should be accepted by the DHCR. The DHCR ruled against tenant. The DHCR notified tenant of landlord's application on Aug. 4, 1994. Tenant's response was due on Oct. 3, 1994. No response was received until Nov. 30. Tenant's delay wasn't slight. Tenant had 60 days to respond and took almost twice that long. And tenant offered no excuse or explanation for the delay.

Christel, Inc.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. JC410153RT (4/26/96) [3-page document]

Downloads

JC410153RT.pdf173.22 KB

Topics

More like this