219 East 69th Street Tenants Association v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

219 East 69th Street Tenants Association v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

86 A.D.3d 434, 926 N.Y.2d 291

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 7, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the record before DHCR permitted it to rationally and reasonably find that, other than seven apartments where defective window installations were found, the remaining apartments were subject to an MCI rent increase based on the window installations (compare Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206 [1989], with Matter of Weinreb Mgt. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 305 AD2d 207 [2003]). DHCR providently exercised its discretion in attempting to inspect only those apartments identified by petitioners as having defective window installations (see Matter of 370 Manhattan Ave. Co., L.L.C. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 11 AD3d 370, 371 [2004]). Contrary to petitioners’ contention, there was no court order requiring DHCR to perform more inspections. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 30176(U).]

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

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the record before DHCR permitted it to rationally and reasonably find that, other than seven apartments where defective window installations were found, the remaining apartments were subject to an MCI rent increase based on the window installations (compare Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206 [1989], with Matter of Weinreb Mgt. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 305 AD2d 207 [2003]). DHCR providently exercised its discretion in attempting to inspect only those apartments identified by petitioners as having defective window installations (see Matter of 370 Manhattan Ave. Co., L.L.C. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 11 AD3d 370, 371 [2004]). Contrary to petitioners’ contention, there was no court order requiring DHCR to perform more inspections. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 30176(U).]

219 East 69th Street Tenants Association v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 86 A.D.3d 434, 926 N.Y.2d 291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

86 A.D.3d 434 (219 East 69th Street Tenants Association v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related