Shapiro v. DHCR, 26LLC2 AD2d 18, 690 NYS2d 583 (1st Dep’t 1999),
aff’d sub nom., Elkin v. Roldan, 94 NY2d 853, 704 NYS2d 201 (1999).

David preserved his client’s rent-stabilized tenancy in a high-income deregulation proceeding [a/k/a “luxury deregulation”] by convincing every court – the trial court, the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals – that tenant’s supposed delay in filing answer to deregulation petition was excusable.