430 East 86th Street Tenants Committee v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

430 East 86th Street Tenants Committee v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal

254 A.D.2d 41, 678 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10082

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 41 (430 East 86th Street Tenants Committee v. State of New York 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

430 East 86th Street Tenants Committee v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 254 A.D.2d 41, 678 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered June 6, 1997, which denied petitioner tenant’s application to annul respondent Department of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR) determination awarding respondent owner a major capital improvement rent increase, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

DHCR’s finding that the owner is entitled to a major capital improvement rent increase for the roof replacement it did, as well as for related work involving replacement of 80% of the building’s parapets and masonry repairs, is rationally based upon the documentary evidence the parties submitted and DHCR’s own inspector’s report, and is entitled to deference (see, Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v Department of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206, 213; Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [2] [ii]). There is no merit to the [42]*42tenants’ claim that their due process rights were violated by DHCR’s consideration of the owner’s architect’s report, first submitted on the owner’s petition for administrative review (PAR), without providing the tenants with a copy thereof or otherwise giving them an opportunity to respond thereto. The architect’s report, which was submitted in response to a claim of poor workmanship made in a tenants’ submission that itself was first submitted on the PAR, was accepted by DHCR in conformity with its practice of accepting replies to answers, much as the courts do. There is no right to sur-reply and there is no reason for compelling DHCR’s consideration of any further response by the tenants absent a showing of prejudice. We have considered the tenants’ other arguments and find them to be unpreserved or without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered June 6, 1997, which denied petitioner tenant’s application to annul respondent Department of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR) determination awarding respondent owner a major capital improvement rent increase, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

DHCR’s finding that the owner is entitled to a major capital improvement rent increase for the roof replacement it did, as well as for related work involving replacement of 80% of the building’s parapets and masonry repairs, is rationally based upon the documentary evidence the parties submitted and DHCR’s own inspector’s report, and is entitled to deference (see, Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v Department of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206, 213; Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [2] [ii]). There is no merit to the [42]*42tenants’ claim that their due process rights were violated by DHCR’s consideration of the owner’s architect’s report, first submitted on the owner’s petition for administrative review (PAR), without providing the tenants with a copy thereof or otherwise giving them an opportunity to respond thereto. The architect’s report, which was submitted in response to a claim of poor workmanship made in a tenants’ submission that itself was first submitted on the PAR, was accepted by DHCR in conformity with its practice of accepting replies to answers, much as the courts do. There is no right to sur-reply and there is no reason for compelling DHCR’s consideration of any further response by the tenants absent a showing of prejudice. We have considered the tenants’ other arguments and find them to be unpreserved or without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 41, 678 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/430-east-86th-street-tenants-committee-v-state-of-new-york-division-of-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack