Opinion
May 11, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.).
Although the tenant failed to provide the income verification information DHCR had requested within 60 days of DHCR's request (see, Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 26-504.3 [c] [1]), she did provide such information shortly after the deregulation order was issued when she requested the Rent Administrator to reconsider that order. The decision not to reconsider the deregulation order at this initial administrative level was arbitrary and capricious given the tenant's compelling proof of household income well below the then statutory threshold of $250,000 ( see, Matter of Elkin v. Roldan, 260 A.D.2d 197). The prior cases of this Court to the effect that deregulation is mandated by a tenant's failure to provide income verification information within the statutory 60-day period ( Matter of Londin v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 259 A.D.2d 398; Matter of Sudarsky v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 258 A.D.2d 405; Pledge v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 257 A.D.2d 391; Matter of Bazbaz v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 246 A.D.2d 388; Matter of Nick v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 244 A.D.2d 299) are distinguishable, in that "in each of these cases the tenant never submitted the Verification Notice to DHCR during the initial level of administrative proceedings" ( Matter of Elkin v. Roldan, supra, at 199 [emphasis in original]).
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Lerner, Saxe and Friedman, JJ. [ See, 175 Misc.2d 996.]