Opinion ID: 2039833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Seymour v DHCR

Text: In January 1995, Seymour's landlord sent her an ICF, which she failed to return. On April 27, 1995, the landlord filed a petition for deregulation, and on August 17, 1995, DHCR sent Seymour notice of the petition. Seymour did not submit income verification information to DHCR, and on December 21, 1995 the Rent Administrator issued a default order of deregulation. On January 24, 1996, Seymour filed a PAR, providing tax returns demonstrating that her household income fell below the statutory threshold. Seymour acknowledged that she had received the notice sent by the Division in August 1994 but had neglected to mail it. She asked that the default order be vacated because her default was not willful and because of the strong policy of this state that matters be decided on their merits. On July 23, 1997, DHCR denied the PAR, holding that [i]nadvertent neglect does not excuse the tenant's failure to file an Answer. [2] Seymour then filed the instant article 78 proceeding, alleging that DHCR's refusal to vacate its default order was arbitrary and capricious and denied her due process of law. Supreme Court held that DHCR had the discretion to review Seymour's late submission and vacate the default, and remitted the case to the Division to reconsider its order in light of Seymour's belated submissions. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that DHCR's decision not to reconsider its default order was arbitrary and capricious given the tenant's compelling proof of household income well below the    statutory threshold (261 AD2d 176). This Court granted leave.