12 East 86th Street, LLC v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

12 East 86th Street, LLC v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal

295 A.D.2d 143, 742 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5837

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 6, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 143 (12 East 86th Street, LLC v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

12 East 86th Street, LLC v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 295 A.D.2d 143, 742 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered June 1, 2001, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated December 13, 2000, denying petitioner’s petition for administrative review, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent agency’s interpretation of the then governing statutes and regulations resulted in the exclusion of vacancy and guidelines increases in calculating the subject apartment’s rent for purposes of the $2,000 high-rent decontrol threshold. Supreme Court properly found that this interpretation was not irrational or unreasonable and should therefore be upheld (see, Vink v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 285 AD2d 203, 210). The argument that this Court should apply an amendment to the Rent Stabilization Code enacted after the determination here at issue was rendered is without merit (see, Matter of Waverly Place Assoc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 292 AD2d 211). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered June 1, 2001, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated December 13, 2000, denying petitioner’s petition for administrative review, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent agency’s interpretation of the then governing statutes and regulations resulted in the exclusion of vacancy and guidelines increases in calculating the subject apartment’s rent for purposes of the $2,000 high-rent decontrol threshold. Supreme Court properly found that this interpretation was not irrational or unreasonable and should therefore be upheld (see, Vink v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 285 AD2d 203, 210). The argument that this Court should apply an amendment to the Rent Stabilization Code enacted after the determination here at issue was rendered is without merit (see, Matter of Waverly Place Assoc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 292 AD2d 211). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 143, 742 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/12-east-86th-street-llc-v-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack