Cape Management Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cape Management Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

303 A.D.2d 174, 755 N.Y.S.2d 237, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2243

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 6, 2003·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered October 22, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated August 2, 2000, finding petitioner liable for rent overcharges and awarding tenants $94,204.26, including treble damages and excess security, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to petitioner’s claim that it did not have adequate [175] notice of the rent overcharge proceeding, the record demonstrates that it was twice fully notified of the proceeding — the second notice having been furnished years subsequent to the first notice. Nonetheless, petitioner, without adequate explanation, failed to timely respond to either notice (see Matter of Rubin v Eimicke, 150 AD2d 697, 698 [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 704 [1990]).

To the extent that they are properly before us, petitioner’s remaining points have been reviewed and found unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered October 22, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated August 2, 2000, finding petitioner liable for rent overcharges and awarding tenants $94,204.26, including treble damages and excess security, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to petitioner’s claim that it did not have adequate [175] notice of the rent overcharge proceeding, the record demonstrates that it was twice fully notified of the proceeding — the second notice having been furnished years subsequent to the first notice. Nonetheless, petitioner, without adequate explanation, failed to timely respond to either notice (see Matter of Rubin v Eimicke, 150 AD2d 697, 698 [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 704 [1990]).

To the extent that they are properly before us, petitioner’s remaining points have been reviewed and found unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

Cape Management Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 303 A.D.2d 174, 755 N.Y.S.2d 237, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

303 A.D.2d 174 (Cape Management Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related