Dworman v. New York State Div. of Housing and Community Renewal

• Decision Date: 06 May 1999
• Citation: 689 N.Y.S.2d 484
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 3996 In re Application of Leona DWORMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, For an Order, etc., v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent-Respondent, and 40 Central Park South, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 484

689 N.Y.S.2d 484

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 3996

In re Application of Leona DWORMAN, Petitioner-Appellant For an Order, etc., v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent-Respondent and 40 Central Park South, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

May 6, 1999.

Kent Karlsson, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Roderick J. Walters, for Respondent-Respondent.

Jeffrey R. Metz, for Intervenor-Respondent.

WILLIAMS, J.P., TOM, WALLACH, MAZZARELLI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered May 6, 1998, which dismissed her petition seeking to annul the high income luxury deregulation order of DHCR issued October 23, 1997, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the petition reinstated and the matter remanded to DHCR for determination on the merits.

This matter, which involves those provisions of the Rent Regulation and Reform Act of 1993 codified at Administrative Code of the City of New York, ch 4 §§ 26-504.1--26-504.3, i.e., the procedure for seeking deregulation of a rent-stabilized apartment where the rent is $2000 or more per month and, at the time the proceedings in question were commenced, where the tenant/occupant had a total annual income in excess of $250,000 for each of the two preceding years, is factually similar to our recent decision in Matter of Elkin v. Roldan, --- A.D.2d ----, 688 N.Y.S.2d 61. In Elkin, we drew a factual distinction between our decisions wherein the tenant never responded to DHCR's notice for verification of household income during the initial level of administrative proceedings, and those where the tenant submitted verification, albeit beyond the statutory 60-day response period (Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 26-504.3[c] ), but prior to DHCR's issuance of a deregulation order. We held, inter alia, that the statutory language does not mandate that a failure to submit the verification within the statutory time period must result in deregulation of the premises by default, especially where such default is excusable and occurs at the initial administrative level, that to deregulate the premises based on petitioners' late filing would be arbitrary and capricious where the delay was minimal, their defense meritorious, and there was no prejudice to the landlord and DHCR, and that the agency should proceed to make the determination on the merits.

Accordingly, here, as...