Derfner Management Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

252 A.D.2d 555, 675 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8414
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 20, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 555 (Derfner Management Co. 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
Derfner Management Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 555, 675 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated January 17, 1997, which denied the petition for administrative review of an order of the District Rent Administrator dated June 5, 1989, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated July 31, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that in reviewing the judgment appealed from, this Court is limited to the question of whether the determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) was arbitrary and capricious and without rational support (see, Matter of Waljoy Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 242 AD2d 635; Matter of Duke 367 Realty Corp. v Aponte, 240 AD2d 667; Matter of Mazel Real Estate v Mirabal, 138 AD2d 600).

Here, the petitioner never submitted to the DHCR proof of the rents collected for the subject apartment, even though it received notice that such documentation was required from the base rent date through the date that the complaining tenant took occupancy. The decision of the DHCR to roll back the rent on,the subject apartment was therefore not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of 61 Jane St. Assocs. v New York Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 65 NY2d 898; Matter of Baig v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 201 AD2d 726; Matter of Mazel Real Estate v Mirabal, supra).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

508 Realty Associates, LLC v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
61 A.D.3d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Ador Realty, LLC v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal
25 A.D.3d 128 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Beacon Hill Apartments v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
278 A.D.2d 319 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Orin Management Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
275 A.D.2d 126 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Clear Holding Co. v. State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
268 A.D.2d 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Flagg Court Realty Co. v. Holland
265 A.D.2d 327 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
252 A.D.2d 555, 675 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/derfner-management-co-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-nyappdiv-1998.