Boulevard Tenants Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boulevard Tenants Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

264 A.D.2d 444, 694 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8678

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

DecidedAugust 16, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 444 (Boulevard Tenants Corp. 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

Boulevard Tenants Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 264 A.D.2d 444, 694 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, which, upon a determination that the subject apartment was rent-stabilized rather than rent-controlled, imposed a rent guideline decrease retroactive to April 1, 1998, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated March 19, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On November 13, 1996, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) issued a final order which reclassified the apartment at issue here as rent-stabilized rather than rent-controlled, and reduced the tenant’s rent by a full guideline level, retroactive to April 1, [445]*4451988. The petitioner landlord thereafter had 35 days within which to file a petition for administrative review (hereinafter a PAR), or forfeit its right to review of the agency’s determination (see, Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR 2529.2]). The landlord wrote two letters to the agency, but did not file its PAR until July 21, 1997. The agency rejected the PAR as time-barred.

The court properly dismissed the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The landlord’s letters to the DHCR did not extend its time to file a PAR, with the result that the rejection of the PAR as untimely was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see, e.g., Matter of Dowling v Holland, 245 AD2d 167; Matter of Ruiz v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 210 AD2d 338; Matter of Weber v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 190 AD2d 810; Matter of S & M Dev. v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 182 AD2d 995). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, which, upon a determination that the subject apartment was rent-stabilized rather than rent-controlled, imposed a rent guideline decrease retroactive to April 1, 1998, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated March 19, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On November 13, 1996, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) issued a final order which reclassified the apartment at issue here as rent-stabilized rather than rent-controlled, and reduced the tenant’s rent by a full guideline level, retroactive to April 1, [445]*4451988. The petitioner landlord thereafter had 35 days within which to file a petition for administrative review (hereinafter a PAR), or forfeit its right to review of the agency’s determination (see, Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR 2529.2]). The landlord wrote two letters to the agency, but did not file its PAR until July 21, 1997. The agency rejected the PAR as time-barred.

The court properly dismissed the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The landlord’s letters to the DHCR did not extend its time to file a PAR, with the result that the rejection of the PAR as untimely was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see, e.g., Matter of Dowling v Holland, 245 AD2d 167; Matter of Ruiz v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 210 AD2d 338; Matter of Weber v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 190 AD2d 810; Matter of S & M Dev. v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 182 AD2d 995). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 444, 694 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boulevard-tenants-corp-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack