First National in Palm Beach v. Holland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

First National in Palm Beach v. Holland

262 A.D.2d 104, 693 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6442

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

DecidedJune 10, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 104 (First National in Palm Beach v. Holland) 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

First National in Palm Beach v. Holland, 262 A.D.2d 104, 693 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6442 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered February 4, 1997, which denied the application and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the order of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated August 24, 1995, directing a rent reduction for the building owned by petitioner’s decedent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly found that respondent DHCR’s order reducing rent at the subject premises, by reason of the landlord’s failure to maintain certain building-wide services, had a rational basis in the administrative record and was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-231; Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784). DHCR submitted sufficient proof that it had provided the managing agent with notice of the tenants’ complaint and an opportunity to respond, and, contrary to petitioner’s contention, the court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the legal issues raised in connection with the service of such notice. The defects listed in the Rent Reduction Orders were directly related to the conditions listed in the complaint and such orders were, accordingly, properly based on those defects. Finally, the landlord’s counsel was not deprived of access to DHCR’s administrative files. Indeed, the landlord’s counsel submitted certain documents copied from the administrative files and had ample opportunity to make further submissions but did not do so. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered February 4, 1997, which denied the application and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the order of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated August 24, 1995, directing a rent reduction for the building owned by petitioner’s decedent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly found that respondent DHCR’s order reducing rent at the subject premises, by reason of the landlord’s failure to maintain certain building-wide services, had a rational basis in the administrative record and was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-231; Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784). DHCR submitted sufficient proof that it had provided the managing agent with notice of the tenants’ complaint and an opportunity to respond, and, contrary to petitioner’s contention, the court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the legal issues raised in connection with the service of such notice. The defects listed in the Rent Reduction Orders were directly related to the conditions listed in the complaint and such orders were, accordingly, properly based on those defects. Finally, the landlord’s counsel was not deprived of access to DHCR’s administrative files. Indeed, the landlord’s counsel submitted certain documents copied from the administrative files and had ample opportunity to make further submissions but did not do so. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 104, 693 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-in-palm-beach-v-holland-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack