Chelsea Inn Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

306 A.D.2d 16, 759 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6193
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 3, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 16 (Chelsea Inn 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
Chelsea Inn Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 306 A.D.2d 16, 759 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered March 13, 2002, which denied petitioner landlord’s application to annul the determination of respondent State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) granting the tenant’s petitions for administrative review, revoking the Rent Administrator’s orders that had denied the tenant’s rent overcharge complaints, and dismissing the overcharge complaints, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

DHCR’s dismissal of the tenant’s overcharge complaints was rationally based on the settlement agreement that petitioner and the tenant entered into while the matter was pending before the Rent Administrator (see Matter of Firstmark Dev. Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 283 AD2d 274, 277-278 [2001]). The record shows that the tenant submitted this agreement to the Rent Administrator at his first opportunity, and that petitioner was then given a full and fair opportunity to address the agreement, but did not. Thus, DHCR properly refused to consider the various arguments that petitioner subsequently raised on the petition for administrative review challenging the validity of the agreement (see Matter of DiMaggio v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 248 AD2d 533, 534-535 [1998]). We note that the issue of whether respondent Glasser has the right to remain in the premises rent-free was not, and in any event should not, have been resolved by DHCR. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Wages v. State of N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
2020 NY Slip Op 3851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
306 A.D.2d 16, 759 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chelsea-inn-corp-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-2003.