The decision of the court below eviscerates the statutorily mandated, tenant-protective function of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal in administering the rent control and stabilization laws and will result in the dislocation of long-term tenants from their homes, the loss of numerous rent-regulated residential units and the straining of the resources of legal services organizations. (Braschi v Stahl Assocs. Co., 74 NY2d 201; Festa v Leshen, 145 AD2d 49; Matter of Versailles Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 76 NY2d 325; Matter of Village Tenth Co. v Walsh, 40 AD2d 969, 33 NY2d 700; Capital Tel. Co. v Pattersonville Tel. Co., 56 NY2d 11; Haddad Corp. v Redmond Studio, 102 AD2d 730; Garay v Todros, 282 App Div 126.)
OPINION OF THE COURT
Titone, J.
In this action and proceeding, the Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiff landlord judgment declaring that he is entitled under the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations and the Rent Stabilization Code to demolish his building, to evict his rent-control tenants and to refrain from offering renewal leases to his rent-stabilization tenants. The primary question presented by this appeal is whether the Supreme Court had concurrent authority to entertain the dispute in light of the various sections of the Regulations and the Code that specifically provide for the resolution of such disputes, at least in the first instance, by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), the administrative agency charged with implementing those statutes. We hold that DHCR had exclusive original jurisdiction in this situation and, accordingly, that plaintiff’s complaint and petition should have been dismissed.