The Nine Lives of Daniel Peckham

Chelsea Partners v. Peckham goes back to DHCR

On December 10, 2009 Tim Collins won an order stopping the eviction of Daniel Peckham, who hired Collins, Dobkin & Miller, LLP after he lost his demolition case in the Court of Appeals.

In May of 2004 Chelsea Partners sought permission from the DHCR to terminate Daniel Peckham’s tenancy and demolish 244 West 21st Street.  The application was granted in 2005.  Mr. Peckham’s petition for administrative review was denied by DHCR in 2006.  Peckham challenged the determination and obtained a remand from the Supreme Court in 2007 on the grounds that the DHCR had failed to clarify the standard used to determine what constituted a “demolition” and for a determination of the landlord’s financial ability to complete the project.  In a 3-2 decision, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court and ruled that the record was sufficient to permit the DHCR to act on the application. Peckham lost an appeal to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the Appellate Division in May of 2009.   

At that point, things looked pretty bleak for Mr. Peckham.  After battling eviction for five years he was now faced with eviction.  The landlord commenced an eviction proceeding in 2008 but it was stayed by the successive appeals. It was now placed back on the calendar in Housing Court.   

Throughout the appeals process the landlord denied that Mr. Peckham was still entitled to a moving stipend or relocation apartment, which are mandated by the Rent Stabilization Code, two operational bulletins and by the DHCR’s own decision granting the demolition application.  The landlord wanted a prompt and simple eviction. 

Mr. Peckham sought enforcement of the stipend and relocation provisions before the DHCR and sought to stop the eviction until he was heard on this claim.  Mr. Peckham moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Housing Court proceeding on the grounds that DHCR had exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the relocation requirements.  The landlord cross moved for a judgment of possession.

In an exhaustive opinion, Housing Court Judge Timmie Erin Elsner declined to dismiss the case but remanded the matter to DHCR for a determination of Mr. Peckham’s right to a stipend or relocation apartment.  Judge Elsner held that DHCR had exclusive jurisdiction to determine this matter.  Judge Elsner also found that the appropriate window period for offering these benefits was tolled by the successive appeals — and effectively ran from May 8, 2009 through August 13, 2009. 

Mr. Peckam will assert before the DHCR that no proper offer was made during this period.   

In short, this ruling is a considerable victory for Mr. Peckham who has been rewarded for his unwavering insistence on fair treatment under the demolition procedures.