Katz 737 Corp. v. Cohen

In Katz 737 Corp. v. Cohen (104 AD3d 144 [1st Dept 2012]), the First Department held that DHCR had "exclusive original jurisdiction" to determine whether luxury decontrol of individual apartments pursuant to sections 26-504.1 and 26.504.3 of the Rent Stabilization Law was permitted. However, both of these sections specifically provides that an "order of deregulation" from DHCR is needed (see also RSC 2520.11 [s], regarding high rent decontrol of apartments, specifically provides that such apartments are only exempt "[u]pon the issuance of an order by the DHCR"]). And, in fact, the owner had sought, for four consecutive years, to obtain such an order from DHCR, and was denied each time. Thus, the landlord's Supreme Court action was really "an attempt to relitigate issues administratively determined and to circumvent the jurisdiction of DHCR to decide such matters" (Katz 737 Corp. v. Cohen, 104 AD3d at 149).