In Sohn v. Calderon, 78 NY2d 755 (1991) the owner of a fire-damaged building applied to the Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment, pursuant to RSC 2524.5 a 2), that he was entitled to: demolish the building; evict his rent-controlled tenants; and refrain from offering renewal leases to his rent-stabilized tenants. The tenants argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. DHCR also moved to intervene in the action, arguing that it has exclusive primary jurisdiction over the dispute. The Supreme Court rejected DHCR's argument, "concluding that, as a court of unlimited equitable jurisdiction, it had concurrent authority to determine the dispute" (78 NY2d at 762). The Court of Appeals ruled that the issue is whether the Legislature intended for the adjudication of this dis-pute by DHCR in the first instance (id. at 766), and concluded that the answer was yes, because the particu-lar language of RSC 2524.5 (a) (2) required that an application be filed with DHCR for its approval prior to demolition, and even provides for the continued jurisdiction of DHCR in disputes with tenants over moving expenses, stipends and relocation requirements. The Court determined that the landlord had established the requirements of rent-control and rent-stabilization provisions that permit an owner to evict tenants to tear down a building. (See 78 N.Y.2d at 761-762.) The Supreme Court, affirmed by the Appellate Division, struck down the DHCR's jurisdictional challenges, finding that Supreme Court had concurrent jurisdiction with the DHCR to apply the Rent Stabilization Code. (Id. at 762.) The Court of Appeals reversed and found that the Legislature intended to confer exclusive original jurisdic-tion on the DHCR. The Court looked to the language of the relevant rent-stabilization provision, found that the statute requires that facts be established to the agency's satisfaction, and that the statute contained many other references to agency determinations and findings. (Id. at 767.) The Court emphasized that the Legislature's specific reference to the "agency" in the Rent Stabilization Code underscores the legislative intent to confer sole, original jurisdiction on that agency to make certain determi-nations. (Id.) Thus, Sohn holds that there are areas that the courts can exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the DHCR but that some provisions confer exclusive jurisdiction on the DHCR. It depends on the applicable statute's wording. (See id. at 768 finding that "concurrent Supreme Court jurisdiction was not contemplated in this situation and the Constitution does not require it" .)