Shapiro v. DHCR, 262 AD2d 18 (1st Dep’t 1999), aff’d sub nom., Elkin v. Roldan, 94 NY2d 853 (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.
*David represented tenant as counsel to Himmelstein McConnell Gribben Donoghue & Joseph.
