Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Borger Management, Inc. v. Sindram, 886 A.2d 52 (2005)

Citation
Borger Management, Inc. v. Sindram, 886 A.2d 52 (2005)
Parent Document
Borger Management, Inc. v. Sindram, 886 A.2d 52 (2005)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2005-10-14

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text

987 chars
On November 22, 2002, the trial court granted Sindram’s motion for summary judgment, and denied Borger’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment as moot. In its order, the trial court ruled that D.C. law created an automatic lease extension, as long as the tenant continues to pay rent, and that therefore the lease remained in effect until terminated upon a showing of good cause. Accordingly, the trial court concluded, the HAP contract, which by its language terminates when the lease terminates, remained in effect and could not be unilaterally terminated by Borger without evidence of statutory good cause. Finally, the trial court concluded that Sindram had failed to present sufficient undisputed evidence to establish as a matter of law that Borger discriminated on the basis of source of income under the DCHRA. The court did not rule on Bor-ger’s contention that Sindram’s arguments were precluded by reason of the earlier agency decision. This appeal by Borger followed. II.