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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

225 A.D.2d 410, 640 N.Y.2d 492, 640 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2718

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 410 (Bauer 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

Bauer v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 225 A.D.2d 410, 640 N.Y.2d 492, 640 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The determination of respondent agency was not arbitrary and capricious and was rationally supported by the record (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). As petitioners failed to register the regulated apartment initially in 1984 or prior to the Rent Administrator’s order and failed to serve a copy of the registration on the tenant (Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-517; 9 NYCRR 2528.1) or provide a rent history for the apartment dating back to the base date, the Commissioner properly barred collection of increases in excess of the lawful rent and allowed the agency to use its settled procedures to establish the rent (Matter of Drewbar Realty Co. v State of N. Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 181 AD2d 617). Since petitioners failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the overcharges were not willful, treble damages were properly imposed (Matter of Gattiboni v Aponte, 188 AD2d 434). Nor were petitioners’ rights violated by the failure to hold a fact-finding hearing, where they were afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard (Matter of Aquayo v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 150 AD2d 565).

Equity should not be invoked to relieve petitioners from the imposition of treble damages, as such measure was not so harsh under the facts herein as to "shock the conscience of the court” (Matter of Drizin v Commissioner of Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 140 AD2d 605, 607), and as petitioners’ actions violated statutory law (see, Matter of Dane, 55 AD2d 224, 226). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

The determination of respondent agency was not arbitrary and capricious and was rationally supported by the record (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). As petitioners failed to register the regulated apartment initially in 1984 or prior to the Rent Administrator’s order and failed to serve a copy of the registration on the tenant (Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-517; 9 NYCRR 2528.1) or provide a rent history for the apartment dating back to the base date, the Commissioner properly barred collection of increases in excess of the lawful rent and allowed the agency to use its settled procedures to establish the rent (Matter of Drewbar Realty Co. v State of N. Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 181 AD2d 617). Since petitioners failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the overcharges were not willful, treble damages were properly imposed (Matter of Gattiboni v Aponte, 188 AD2d 434). Nor were petitioners’ rights violated by the failure to hold a fact-finding hearing, where they were afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard (Matter of Aquayo v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 150 AD2d 565).

Equity should not be invoked to relieve petitioners from the imposition of treble damages, as such measure was not so harsh under the facts herein as to "shock the conscience of the court” (Matter of Drizin v Commissioner of Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 140 AD2d 605, 607), and as petitioners’ actions violated statutory law (see, Matter of Dane, 55 AD2d 224, 226). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 410, 640 N.Y.2d 492, 640 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauer-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack