Eisenberg v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

62 A.D.3d 494, 880 N.Y.S.2d 9
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 14, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 494 (Eisenberg 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
Eisenberg v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 62 A.D.3d 494, 880 N.Y.S.2d 9 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered July 5, 2007, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated July 3, 2006, which affirmed an order of the Rent Administrator deregulating petitioner’s apartment based [495]*495on his alleged default in answering a high income rent deregulation petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since petitioner failed to submit any objective proof that he mailed his answer to the landlord’s deregulation petition, DHCR’s determination that petitioner defaulted was neither arbitrary and capricious nor contrary to law (see Matter of Szaro v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 13 AD3d 93 [2004]). Petitioner’s due process claim is unavailing. To the extent, if any, we may take cognizance of petitioner’s belated suggestion (first raised in his reply brief on this appeal) that the matter be remanded to DHCR to consider whether his default is excusable by reason of his alleged diminished capacity, we find that petitioner has failed to raise any substantial issue as to his capacity at the time of his default. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Freedman, JJ.

Reargument granted and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court entered on December 16, 2008 (57 AD3d 312 [2008]) recalled and vacated and a new decision and order substituted therefor. Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 31864(D).]

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

Related

Matter of Zelig v. State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
2020 NY Slip Op 07736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 A.D.3d 494, 880 N.Y.S.2d 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisenberg-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-2009.