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

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

DecidedJuly 7, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 86 A.D.3d 434 (219 East 69th Street Tenants Association 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

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

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).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.3d 434, 926 N.Y.2d 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/219-east-69th-street-tenants-association-v-new-york-state-division-of-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack