207 Realty Associates, LLC v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

297 A.D.2d 569, 747 N.Y.2d 162, 747 N.Y.S.2d 162, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8765
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 24, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 569 (207 Realty Associates, LLC v. New York State 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
207 Realty Associates, LLC v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 297 A.D.2d 569, 747 N.Y.2d 162, 747 N.Y.S.2d 162, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

[570]*570The court properly found that DCHR’s determination that there were no “unique or peculiar” circumstances warranting an adjustment of rents pursuant to New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations (9 NYCRR) § 2202.7 was arbitrary, capricious and irrational since petitioner plainly met the criteria for such an adjustment. Petitioner established the existence of unique and peculiar circumstances over a 17-year period based on the expulsion of a prior owner from the Rent Stabilization Association, pervasive mismanagement of the subject premises by a manager appointed by the court pursuant to RPAPL article 7-A, and numerous inconsistent rulings as to the status of various units at the premises issued by administrative agencies, including respondent. The court properly found that these circumstances resulted in maximum rents which were indisputably substantially lower than rents generally prevailing in the same area for substantially similar housing accommodations.

We see no reason to disturb the court’s direction that a comparability study be conducted for the purpose of determining the extent of the adjustment to which petitioner is entitled.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Migliaccio v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
2018 NY Slip Op 3132 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Columbus 95th Street, LLC v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
81 A.D.3d 269 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
297 A.D.2d 569, 747 N.Y.2d 162, 747 N.Y.S.2d 162, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/207-realty-associates-llc-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-nyappdiv-2002.