Justice Judith J. Gische
Tipadis sought to vacate or annul a decision by the Division of Housing & Community Renewal denying her petition for administrative review (PAR). DHCR cross-moved for an order permitting the matter be remitted back to it for reconsideration. The landlord opposed the cross-motion, noting it was granted a fuel cost adjustment (FCA) and increased the fuel charge. Tipadis denied receiving notice of the application, and challenged the FCA. The rent administrator denied the challenge and terminated the proceeding as untimely. Tipadis filed a PAR, which was denied as untimely, and filed this Article 78 proceeding challenging the order. The court noted that while a tenant’s time to challenge with the rent administrator was within 35 days after receipt of the owner’s report, it noted the deadline was not embodied in city Rent and Eviction Regulations (NYCRER). It found DHCR was asking the matter be remitted so it could make a determination on the merits and extend the time within which an answer must be filed to a PAR, which NYCRER permitted for good cause shown. The court ruled DHCR had broad powers to alter its prior decision on remission granting its cross-motion and denying the petition.
