Tenant Gets Chance to Show Excusable Default

November 1, 1997

LVT Number: 11908

Landlord applied to the DHCR in 1994 for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant's apartment. The DRA ruled for landlord based on tenant's failure to answer landlord's petition. Tenant appealed, claiming that he was being treated for depression at the time the answer was due and that he believed that he'd mailed an answer to landlord's petition directly to landlord rather than to the DHCR. Tenant also submitted tax returns showing that his annual household income was less than $250,000 for the years 1992 and 1993.

Landlord applied to the DHCR in 1994 for high-rent/high-income deregulation of tenant's apartment. The DRA ruled for landlord based on tenant's failure to answer landlord's petition. Tenant appealed, claiming that he was being treated for depression at the time the answer was due and that he believed that he'd mailed an answer to landlord's petition directly to landlord rather than to the DHCR. Tenant also submitted tax returns showing that his annual household income was less than $250,000 for the years 1992 and 1993. The DHCR ruled against tenant based on his failure to answer the petition within 60 days as required by law. Tenant appealed. The court ruled for tenant. The DHCR's decision was arbitrary and capricious because it didn't consider whether tenant's default was excusable. The court sent the case back to the DHCR to consider whether tenant's failure to file an answer on time to the deregulation petition was justified or excusable.

Sudarsky v. DHCR: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 2 (10/15/97) (Sup. Ct. NY; Cahn, J)

Topics

More like this