Fifty Seventh Street Operating L. L. C. v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fifty Seventh Street Operating L. L. C. v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

281 A.D.2d 213, 721 N.Y.S.2d 767, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2234

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 213 (Fifty Seventh Street Operating L. L. C. v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development) 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

Fifty Seventh Street Operating L. L. C. v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development, 281 A.D.2d 213, 721 N.Y.S.2d 767, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, dated February 23, 1999, which denied petitioners’ application for a Certification of No Harassment with respect to the premises at 130 East 57th Street in Manhattan, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Harold Tompkins, J.], entered October 20, 1999), dismissed, without costs.

Respondents found, after a hearing upon petitioner landlords’ application for a Certification of No Harassment, that petitioners had harassed the tenants of their SRO by illegally locking them out, abusing them verbally, wrongfully refusing to offer them leases, failing to make necessary repairs, and failing to maintain the communal baths and toilet rooms in sanitary condition. Respondents further found that, by means of such harassment, petitioners intended to cause their tenants to vacate their rooms or otherwise waive their occupancy rights. These findings were supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Wilson v City of White Plains, 95 NY2d 783, 784-785; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 77 NY2d 411, 417-418) in the form of testimony from numerous witnesses, including the tenants themselves and members of the SRO staff, and there exists no ground to disturb the hearing officer’s assessment of credibility (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, dated February 23, 1999, which denied petitioners’ application for a Certification of No Harassment with respect to the premises at 130 East 57th Street in Manhattan, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Harold Tompkins, J.], entered October 20, 1999), dismissed, without costs.

Respondents found, after a hearing upon petitioner landlords’ application for a Certification of No Harassment, that petitioners had harassed the tenants of their SRO by illegally locking them out, abusing them verbally, wrongfully refusing to offer them leases, failing to make necessary repairs, and failing to maintain the communal baths and toilet rooms in sanitary condition. Respondents further found that, by means of such harassment, petitioners intended to cause their tenants to vacate their rooms or otherwise waive their occupancy rights. These findings were supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Wilson v City of White Plains, 95 NY2d 783, 784-785; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 77 NY2d 411, 417-418) in the form of testimony from numerous witnesses, including the tenants themselves and members of the SRO staff, and there exists no ground to disturb the hearing officer’s assessment of credibility (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 213, 721 N.Y.S.2d 767, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fifty-seventh-street-operating-l-l-c-v-new-york-city-department-of-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack