Tenant Excused from Luxury Deregulation Default

Landlord applied in 2005 for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant's rent-stabilized apartment. The DRA ruled for landlord based on tenant's failure to respond to the notice of landlord's application. Tenant appealed, claiming that he had a valid reason for his default. Tenant was out of the country from March 2005 until January 2006, to take care of his gravely ill father in Israel. Tenant's father died in December 2005. Tenant said that he had has asked his agent to handle his affairs while he was away and to forward any important mail to him, but he didn't learn about landlord's application until late October 2005. Tenant also stated that he was paralyzed from the waist down and required special care. The DHCR ruled for tenant and reopened the case. Tenant gave an adequate explanation for why he didn't answer the DRA's notice of landlord's application. Tenant attempted to have someone handle his affairs while he was out of the country and shouldn't be held responsible for his agent's failure to address this matter or to notify tenant about the DHCR proceeding. Tenant answered landlord's two prior luxury deregulation proceedings, so he understood how important it was to file an answer. The case was sent back to the DRA for determination of whether tenant's income was less than the deregulation threshold.

Gazit: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. VG610012RP (12/5/07) [4-pg. doc.]