Gellerman v. Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gellerman v. Higgins

213 A.D.2d 309, 624 N.Y.S.2d 830

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 309 (Gellerman v. Higgins) 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

Gellerman v. Higgins, 213 A.D.2d 309, 624 N.Y.S.2d 830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered September 10, 1993, which granted tenants’ CPLR article 78 petition to the extent of remanding the rent overcharge claim to New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), unanimously reversed, on the law, and the claim and the petition dismissed, without costs.

DHCR’s determination of petitioner’s claim was in accordance with the express provisions of Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-510 (d) and the applicable Rent Guidelines Orders (see, Seales v Mirabal, 152 AD2d 672, 674). Contrary to petitioners’ urgings based upon D’Emilia v Conciliation & Appeals Bd. (index No. 25842/83, Mar. 1985, Elliott Wilk, J.), neither the statute nor the orders condition vacancy increases on whether the prior tenant maintained occupancy until the termination of his lease. Inasmuch as an administrative agency’s reasonable, rational interpretation and application of the statutes and regulations under which it functions is entitled to judicial deference (Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206, 213; Cale Dev. v Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 94 AD2d 229, 232, affd 61 NY2d 976), we find that the IAS Court erred in ordering the remand. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered September 10, 1993, which granted tenants’ CPLR article 78 petition to the extent of remanding the rent overcharge claim to New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), unanimously reversed, on the law, and the claim and the petition dismissed, without costs.

DHCR’s determination of petitioner’s claim was in accordance with the express provisions of Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-510 (d) and the applicable Rent Guidelines Orders (see, Seales v Mirabal, 152 AD2d 672, 674). Contrary to petitioners’ urgings based upon D’Emilia v Conciliation & Appeals Bd. (index No. 25842/83, Mar. 1985, Elliott Wilk, J.), neither the statute nor the orders condition vacancy increases on whether the prior tenant maintained occupancy until the termination of his lease. Inasmuch as an administrative agency’s reasonable, rational interpretation and application of the statutes and regulations under which it functions is entitled to judicial deference (Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206, 213; Cale Dev. v Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 94 AD2d 229, 232, affd 61 NY2d 976), we find that the IAS Court erred in ordering the remand. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 309, 624 N.Y.S.2d 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gellerman-v-higgins-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack