Ahmed v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

15 A.D.3d 216, 790 N.Y.S.2d 80, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1295
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 8, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 216 (Ahmed 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
Ahmed v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 15 A.D.3d 216, 790 N.Y.S.2d 80, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J), entered October 23, 2003, which, upon the grant of respondent’s cross motion, dismissed the petition and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination terminating petitioner tenants’ proceedings before it alleging, inter alia, that the rents charged for their units were excessive, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) set the initial rents for the subject apartments following renovations that were financed in part with a Private Housing Finance Law loan from HPD, respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) was without authority to review petitioners’ challenges to those rents (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2521.1 [f]), and therefore correctly terminated petitioners’ proceeding alleging that those rents were excessive. Since petitioners proceeded against DHCR, and not HPD, their CPLR article 78 petition failed to allege grounds upon which relief could be granted. If petitioners wished to challenge the initial postrenovation rents set by HPD, or were aggrieved by the dimensions of their new rooms, the proper course would have been to proceed, pursuant to CPLR article 78, against HPD. Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Friedman, Sullivan and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Related

Winston v. Torres
73 A.D.3d 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 A.D.3d 216, 790 N.Y.S.2d 80, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahmed-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-2005.