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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

181 A.D.2d 514, 580 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3465

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brusco v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal. Read the opinion of the Court — 170 A.D.2d 184 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 12, 1992·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered January 23, 1991, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought to annul a determination that the petitioner reimburse his tenant $10,030.74, including treble damages, based on a finding that petitioner-landlord’s overcharge of rent was willful, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petitioner owns a building located at 111 West 74th Street and commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding arguing that the rent overcharge determination constituted a taking of his property in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. The IAS court dismissed the article 78 petition holding that the imposition of the rate ceiling on vacant stabilized apartments does not constitute a taking of property.

The State may restrict the use of property, which may affect the return thereon, provided the regulation advances a legitimate public purpose. (Matter of Golden v Planning Bd., 30 NY2d 359.) The Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 advances a legitimate State interest. Rent overcharge orders do not violate the Federal Constitution (see, Brusco v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 170 AD2d 184). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ross, Asch and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered January 23, 1991, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought to annul a determination that the petitioner reimburse his tenant $10,030.74, including treble damages, based on a finding that petitioner-landlord’s overcharge of rent was willful, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petitioner owns a building located at 111 West 74th Street and commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding arguing that the rent overcharge determination constituted a taking of his property in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. The IAS court dismissed the article 78 petition holding that the imposition of the rate ceiling on vacant stabilized apartments does not constitute a taking of property.

The State may restrict the use of property, which may affect the return thereon, provided the regulation advances a legitimate public purpose. (Matter of Golden v Planning Bd., 30 NY2d 359.) The Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 advances a legitimate State interest. Rent overcharge orders do not violate the Federal Constitution (see, Brusco v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 170 AD2d 184). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ross, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Brusco v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 181 A.D.2d 514, 580 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

181 A.D.2d 514 (Brusco v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related