Tenant Must Be Named as Party in Landlord's Case Against DHCR

Facts: In 1995, rent-controlled tenant complained to the DHCR of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration. The DRA ruled against landlord, and landlord appealed. Eventually, landlord and the DHCR signed a settlement agreement in court, calling for landlord to schedule extermination services at the apartment and requiring tenant to give access. But tenant wasn't a party to that agreement. Later, landlord sought to evict tenant because tenant didn't provide access as required by the agreement. While landlord's appeal against the DHCR was still pending, tenant asked the court for permission to join that case and to vacate a court order directing the DHCR to restore her rent. The court ruled against tenant, and she appealed. Court: Tenant wins. Tenant has been affected, and could be further affected in the future, by the terms of the DHCR's agreement with landlord and by any determinations in the case between landlord and the DHCR. So tenant is entitled to be joined as a party. And the court's order directing the DHCR to restore rent must be vacated.

Notre Dame Leasing LP v. DHCR: NYLJ, 10/24/05, p. 35, col. 5 (App. Div. 2 Dept.; Miller, JP, Adams, Spolzino, Fisher, JJ)