Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)

Citation
Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)
Parent Document
Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1980-11-06

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text

1,708 chars
As long as petitioners continue to receive utility services, any dispute as to the liability for their delivery rests solely between the government and BGM.14 Although the Housing Code unquestionably was designed to protect tenants’ interests (as well as the public health and safety), the government has the primary responsibility to enforce it. Similarly, when a landlord seeks a variance from what he asserts is an unreasonable notice to correct Code violations, the resolution of that problem lies between the landlord and the government. The Housing Code neither provides for nor recommends the tenants’ participation in these matters.15 When a Housing Code case has run its course and has become final at the administrative level, the DCAPA permits “[a]ny person . .. adversely affected or aggrieved” by that final action to seek review in this court. D.C.Code 1978 Supp., § 1-1510. We eschew deciding whether individuals such as petitioners might have standing as “persons” notwithstanding the fact that they were not “parties” in the agency proceeding. Cf. DeLavey v. Rental Accommodations Commission, D.C.App., 411 A.2d 354, 359 (1980); Smith v. Murphy, D.C.App., 294 A.2d 357, 359 n.2 (1972). Assuming arguendo that petitioners could have status as “persons” within the meaning of § 1-1510, nonetheless they must satisfy each prong of the standing test that has evolved from the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal APA.16 Because petitioners have not demonstrated any concrete and immediate injury in fact from the action from which they have appealed, thereby failing the most fundamental of the standing tests, we dismiss their petition for review for want of jurisdiction.17 Dismissed.