Epdi Associates v. New York City Loft Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Epdi Associates v. New York City Loft Board

60 A.D.3d 472, 874 N.Y.S.2d 450

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 10, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 472 (Epdi Associates v. New York City Loft Board) 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

Epdi Associates v. New York City Loft Board, 60 A.D.3d 472, 874 N.Y.S.2d 450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), entered December 20, 2007, which granted the owner’s petition to the extent of annulling that part of a Loft Board order that required amendment of an abandonment application to list former tenants as affected parties to be served with notice of the application, rejected the administrative law judge’s recommendation that the former tenants’ units were abandoned, and remanded the application for further proceedings, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied in its entirety, the proceeding dismissed, and the Loft Board order reinstated and confirmed.

The Loft Board properly interpreted its own regulation (see Matter of IG Second Generation Partners L.P. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 10 NY3d 474, 481 [2008]). It also correctly understood its own prior order in implicitly finding that it did not decide the rights of the departed Brower, Koch and Roussin tenants, so the order at issue was neither irrational nor inconsistent with the administrative body’s own precedent (cf. Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 NY2d 516 [1985]). We note that the obituary of a departed tenant was not part of the administrative record, and was thus improperly considered by the court (see Matter of Rizzo v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 6 NY3d 104, 110 [2005]), and that the [473]*473Loft Board was justifiably skeptical about other evidence submitted by petitioner. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), entered December 20, 2007, which granted the owner’s petition to the extent of annulling that part of a Loft Board order that required amendment of an abandonment application to list former tenants as affected parties to be served with notice of the application, rejected the administrative law judge’s recommendation that the former tenants’ units were abandoned, and remanded the application for further proceedings, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied in its entirety, the proceeding dismissed, and the Loft Board order reinstated and confirmed.

The Loft Board properly interpreted its own regulation (see Matter of IG Second Generation Partners L.P. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 10 NY3d 474, 481 [2008]). It also correctly understood its own prior order in implicitly finding that it did not decide the rights of the departed Brower, Koch and Roussin tenants, so the order at issue was neither irrational nor inconsistent with the administrative body’s own precedent (cf. Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 NY2d 516 [1985]). We note that the obituary of a departed tenant was not part of the administrative record, and was thus improperly considered by the court (see Matter of Rizzo v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 6 NY3d 104, 110 [2005]), and that the [473]*473Loft Board was justifiably skeptical about other evidence submitted by petitioner. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 472, 874 N.Y.S.2d 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epdi-associates-v-new-york-city-loft-board-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack