Lawrence Alexander and Dennis B. Hasher for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, intervenor-appellant.
I. The Division of Housing and Community Renewal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine this application for certificates of eviction, where the landlord desires to demolish a building with tenancies protected under both the rent-control and rent-stabilization laws. (Braschi v Stahl Assocs. Co., 74 NY2d 201; Flacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys., 69 NY2d 355; Loretto v Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 58 NY2d 143; Kagen v Kagen, 21 NY2d 532; Slater v Gallman, 38 NY2d 1; Gaynor v Rockefeller, 15 NY2d 120; 520 E. 81st St. Assocs. v Lenox Hill Hosp., 38 NY2d 525; Matter of Ardizzone v Elliott, 75 NY2d 150; Ferres v City of New Rochelle, 68 NY2d 446; Brownrigg v Herk Estates, 276 App Div 566.) II. The courts below erred as a matter of law in concluding that based on the record at trial, respondent met the requirements under the rent-control and rent-stabilization laws allowing him to demolish the building. (Matter of Efrisch Realty Corp. v Gabel, 24 AD2d 177; Matter of Streg, Inc. v Herman, 41 Misc 2d 777; Matter of Versailles Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 76 NY2d 325; New Year Realty Corp. v Herman, 11 AD2d 643; Eyedent v Vickers Mgt., 150 AD2d 202.) III. The rent regulation statutes grant the Commissioner of DHCR exclusive jurisdiction to determine if harassment has occurred under these laws; the courts below improperly enjoined the harassment hearing pending before DHCR, granting relief that the owner specifically denied seeking, based on a trial that took place in a different action in which appellant was not even a party. (State of New York v Barone, 74 NY2d 332; Barasch v Barasch, 166 AD2d 399; Schwartz v Public Adm’