## Facts

- A three-alarm fire on March 8, 1986 severely damaged a 39-unit apartment building in Manhattan.
- Most apartments were occupied by long-term rent-controlled or rent-stabilized tenants.
- Housing code violations were issued due to post-fire conditions, and tenants sued in Civil Court to compel repairs restoring habitability.
- The landlord filed a Supreme Court action seeking declarations that he could demolish the building, obtain certificates of eviction for rent-controlled tenants, and refuse renewal leases to rent-stabilized tenants, based on a claim that repair costs equaled or exceeded the building’s assessed value.
- The landlord’s requested relief depended on determinations governed by rent-control and rent-stabilization provisions administered by DHCR and, in related respects, HPD.

## Issues

1. Whether Supreme Court had concurrent original jurisdiction with DHCR to decide, in the first instance, a landlord’s entitlement to demolish a rent-regulated building, obtain eviction certificates, and refuse renewal leases.
2. Whether the statutory and regulatory rent scheme assigned exclusive original jurisdiction over those determinations to DHCR (and HPD where applicable), leaving courts to review agency action rather than decide merits initially.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and vacated the merits-based declaratory relief entered by Supreme Court.
- It held that DHCR (and HPD as relevant) are the exclusive initial decision-makers for demolition/eviction/nonrenewal determinations within the rent-regulatory scheme.
- It concluded Supreme Court should have dismissed the landlord’s action and related proceeding for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction rather than adjudicating the merits.
- The certified question (whether the lower courts’ order and judgment were properly made) was answered in the negative.

## Legal Principles

- Where a specialized statutory regulatory program assigns an agency authority to decide threshold eligibility for regulated relief (including demolition-related removal of protected units and eviction certificates), the agency has exclusive original jurisdiction absent contrary legislative direction.
- New York’s constitutional grant of general jurisdiction to Supreme Court does not bar the Legislature from conferring exclusive original jurisdiction on an agency to administer a regulatory scheme.
- Courts generally may not bypass the administrative process by deciding, in the first instance, matters committed to agency determination; judicial involvement is typically through review of final agency action (including Article 78 review).
- The rent-regulatory framework reflects legislative intent that expert agencies, not trial courts, initially assess technical and compliance questions linked to demolition, habitability, and tenant-protection conditions (including harassment-related bars to relief).

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals required the landlord to pursue demolition, eviction-certificate, and nonrenewal relief through the designated administrative agencies first, holding that Supreme Court lacked initial subject-matter jurisdiction to decide those rent-regulatory determinations on the merits.


Sohn v. Calderon, 78 N.Y.2d 755, 579 N.Y.S.2d 940, 587 N.E.2d 807 (N.Y. 1991)