Cenpark Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cenpark Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

257 A.D.2d 543, 685 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 694

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 28, 1999·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered on or about August 3, 1998, which denied petitioner landlord’s application to annul respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s determination denying petitioner a major capital improvement rent increase for certain pointing, waterproofing, and roof replacement work, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s finding that the work in question was not done on a building-wide basis and did not inure to the benefit of all tenants, as required by Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2522.4 (a) (2) (i) (c) in order to qualify as a major capital improvement, has ample support in the record, including tenant complaints of continuing leaks and water damage, the contractor’s statement that it worked on only a portion of the building, and the fact that additional pointing work was subsequently performed (see, Matter of Garden Bay Manor Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 150 AD2d 378). Concur—Williams, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered on or about August 3, 1998, which denied petitioner landlord’s application to annul respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s determination denying petitioner a major capital improvement rent increase for certain pointing, waterproofing, and roof replacement work, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s finding that the work in question was not done on a building-wide basis and did not inure to the benefit of all tenants, as required by Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2522.4 (a) (2) (i) (c) in order to qualify as a major capital improvement, has ample support in the record, including tenant complaints of continuing leaks and water damage, the contractor’s statement that it worked on only a portion of the building, and the fact that additional pointing work was subsequently performed (see, Matter of Garden Bay Manor Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 150 AD2d 378). Concur—Williams, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cenpark Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 257 A.D.2d 543, 685 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

257 A.D.2d 543 (Cenpark Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related