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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

305 A.D.2d 261, 759 N.Y.S.2d 75, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5717

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

DecidedMay 20, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 261 (Garson 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

Garson Management Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 305 A.D.2d 261, 759 N.Y.S.2d 75, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered November 27, 2001, which granted the petition brought by Garson Management Company LLC pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated December 6, 2000, insofar as it found a rent overcharge and awarded respondent tenant Porte $19,125.37, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

DHCR awarded respondent tenant damages for a rent overcharge predicated upon its finding that petitioner landlord was not entitled to a rent increase for major capital improvements completed without the tenants’ consent at a time when the apartment in question was not vacant (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [1]). The administrative record, however, demonstrated indisputably that the apartment was in fact vacant at the time of the improvements at issue, the new tenants not having yet moved in, and that although the lease term had begun some two weeks prior to the completion of the improvements, petitioner had waived its entitlement to the first month’s rent. Under these particular circumstances, the administrative finding that the apartment was occupied at the time of the improvements was contrary to fact and the consequent partial disallowance of the major capital improvement rent increase sought was thus not rationally based (see Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784, 792 [1988]).

We have considered respondent-appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Wallach and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered November 27, 2001, which granted the petition brought by Garson Management Company LLC pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated December 6, 2000, insofar as it found a rent overcharge and awarded respondent tenant Porte $19,125.37, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

DHCR awarded respondent tenant damages for a rent overcharge predicated upon its finding that petitioner landlord was not entitled to a rent increase for major capital improvements completed without the tenants’ consent at a time when the apartment in question was not vacant (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [1]). The administrative record, however, demonstrated indisputably that the apartment was in fact vacant at the time of the improvements at issue, the new tenants not having yet moved in, and that although the lease term had begun some two weeks prior to the completion of the improvements, petitioner had waived its entitlement to the first month’s rent. Under these particular circumstances, the administrative finding that the apartment was occupied at the time of the improvements was contrary to fact and the consequent partial disallowance of the major capital improvement rent increase sought was thus not rationally based (see Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784, 792 [1988]).

We have considered respondent-appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Wallach and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 261, 759 N.Y.S.2d 75, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garson-management-co-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack