=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1 No. 204
In the Matter of Michael Elkin
et al.,
Respondents,
v.
Paul A. Roldan, as Deputy Commis-
sioner of the Division of Housing
and Community Renewal &c.,
Appellant,
and 220 East 72nd Street Company,
Respondent.
----------------------------------
1 No. 209 SSM 13
In the Matter of Howard Shapiro,
Respondent,
v.
New York State Division of
Housing and Community Renewal,
&c.,
Appellant,
and 40 Central Park South, Inc.,
Intervenor-Appellant.
Case No. 204:
Roderick J. Walters, for appellant.
Douglas A. Kellner, for respondents Elkin et al.
Case No. 209 SSM 13:
Submitted by Jeffrey R. Metz, for intervenor-appellant.
Submitted by Roderick J. Walters, for appellant.
Submitted by David E. Frazer, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
In each case, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, w
ithout costs, and the matters remitted to Supreme Court, with instructions to r
emand to DHCR for further proceedings in accordance with this Memorandum, and,
as so modified, affirmed.
Michael and Susan Elkin reside in a rent-stabilized apartment in New Yo
rk City. In March 1995, pursuant to the luxury-decontrol provisions of the Ren
t Regulation Reform Act of 1993, the Elkins' landlord sent them an Income Certi
fication Form (ICF), on which they were required to verify that their income fe
ll below the statutory threshold -- then $250,000 (see, Rent Stabilization Law
SNIPPETS:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
In the Matter of Howard Shapiro,
New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, &c.,
Appellant, and 40 Central Park South, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant.
In each case, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, w ithout costs, and the
Michael and Susan Elkin reside in a rent-stabilized apartment in New Yo rk City.
In March 1995, pursuant to the luxury-decontrol provisions of the Ren t Regulation Reform Act
The Elkins returned the completed form, verifying that their income fell below the threshold.
Nearly a year later, on September 12, 1996, the Rent Administrator issued an order
The Elk ins filed a petition for administrative review (PAR), attaching an affidavit fr om
holding that the postmark "establishthe actual date of mailing" and "clearly outweighs the
Alternatively, they argued that a late response should be accepted both because they had
Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that no prejud ice resulted from the short delay,
Howard Shapiro also resides in a rent-stabilized apartment in New York City.
In early 1995, the landlord sent Shapiro an ICF, which he timely complet ed and returned,
In June 1995, the landlord filed a petition challenging Shapiro's certificatio n, and on
DHCR den ied the PAR, holding that the response was untimely because it had been postmar ked
Shapiro then filed the instant article 78 petition, contending that the three-day delay was
|
