Artnor Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Artnor Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

265 A.D.2d 183, 695 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9733

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 7, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered July 15, 1998, which denied petitioner landlord’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent New York State Division of Housing'and Community Renewal’s determination of a rent overcharge and imposition of treble damages and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s findings that petitioner landlord failed to produce credible evidence to establish that the subject overcharges, arising from petitioner landlord’s improper application of a vacancy increase percentage, unsubstantiated improvements to the premises, and from other “unexplained” circumstances, were not willful is supported by the administrative record. Accordingly, respondent’s determination to impose treble damages had a rational basis and may not be setaside (see, Matter of Century Tower Assocs. v State of N. Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 83 NY2d 819, 823). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered July 15, 1998, which denied petitioner landlord’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent New York State Division of Housing'and Community Renewal’s determination of a rent overcharge and imposition of treble damages and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s findings that petitioner landlord failed to produce credible evidence to establish that the subject overcharges, arising from petitioner landlord’s improper application of a vacancy increase percentage, unsubstantiated improvements to the premises, and from other “unexplained” circumstances, were not willful is supported by the administrative record. Accordingly, respondent’s determination to impose treble damages had a rational basis and may not be setaside (see, Matter of Century Tower Assocs. v State of N. Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 83 NY2d 819, 823). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Artnor Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 265 A.D.2d 183, 695 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

265 A.D.2d 183 (Artnor Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related