Brusco West 78th Street Associates v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brusco West 78th Street Associates v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal

281 A.D.2d 165, 721 N.Y.S.2d 232, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1923

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 1, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about May 4, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner maximum base rent increases for two rent-controlled apartments, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record shows that respondent did consider all of the items of proof offered by petitioner bearing upon its correction of Code violations, including letters from tenants “indicating violation removal,” as invited in respondent’s forms, but found the proof insufficient to show correction of all rent impairing violations and at least 80% of all other violations (Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-405 [h] [6]; 9 NYCRR 2202.3 [h]). This finding was not irrational. At best, petitioner’s evidence permitted a different finding with respect to a fact-intensive issue falling within the area of respondent’s expertise (see, Matter of West Vil. Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 277 AD2d 111). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about May 4, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner maximum base rent increases for two rent-controlled apartments, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record shows that respondent did consider all of the items of proof offered by petitioner bearing upon its correction of Code violations, including letters from tenants “indicating violation removal,” as invited in respondent’s forms, but found the proof insufficient to show correction of all rent impairing violations and at least 80% of all other violations (Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-405 [h] [6]; 9 NYCRR 2202.3 [h]). This finding was not irrational. At best, petitioner’s evidence permitted a different finding with respect to a fact-intensive issue falling within the area of respondent’s expertise (see, Matter of West Vil. Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 277 AD2d 111). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Brusco West 78th Street Associates v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 281 A.D.2d 165, 721 N.Y.S.2d 232, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

281 A.D.2d 165 (Brusco West 78th Street Associates v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related