Luxury Deregulation: Excuses, Excuses
In their Rent Regulation column, Warren Estis and Jeffrey Turkel highlight several DHCR orders to show how although the division will frequently forgive tenants in luxury default proceedings, its capacity for such forgiveness is not unlimited.
July 03, 2017 at 02:03 PM
16 minute read
It is often the case that a tenant defaults in a luxury deregulation proceeding, and that the Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR) rent administrator issues an order of deregulation. Although the governing statute appears to mandate a default if the tenant fails to answer, or answers late, Court of Appeals authority authorizes DHCR to forgive a default for “good cause shown.” As the DHCR orders discussed below establish, DHCR will frequently forgive tenant defaults and remand the proceeding to the Rent Administrator for a determination on the merits.
DHCR's capacity for forgiveness, however, is not unlimited. In several recent cases, DHCR has refused to vacate a default, and has ordered that the apartment be deregulated.
The Statute
Section 26-504.3 of the Rent Stabilization Law provides for the luxury deregulation of apartments renting above the rent deregulation threshold (currently $2,700 or more per month) where the tenant's income exceeds the income threshold (currently $200,000 per year). Section 26-504.3(c)(1) states that DHCR shall serve the owner's petition for deregulation on the tenant, and that the tenant shall have 60 days to answer the petition and provide DHCR with information allowing the Department of Taxation and Finance to verify the tenant's income. Section 26-504.3(c)(3) states that if the “tenant or tenants fail to provide the information required pursuant to subparagraph one of this subdivision, [DHCR] shall issue… an order providing that such housing accommodation shall not be subject to the provisions of this law upon the expiration of the current lease.”
Inevitably, some tenants fail to respond within 60 days, while others fail to respond at all. DHCR initially interpreted the statute as requiring the agency to issue default orders of deregulation in all such instances. In the litigation that followed, the Appellate Division, First Department, initially upheld DHCR's policy, ruling that deregulation was mandated where the tenant failed to abide by the statute. See Nick v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 244 AD2d 299 (1st Dept. 1997); Bazbaz v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 246 AD2d 388 (1st Dept. 1998).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBinding a Successor Town Board; Default on Stipulation of Settlement: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Are New York City Housing Providers Ready for the Fair Chance for Housing Act?
10 minute readUS Supreme Court Justices Pass on Landlord Challenge to NY Rent Stabilization
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1As 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
- 2Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 3Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 4Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 5Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250