Grand Imperial, LLC v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grand Imperial, LLC v. City of New York

115 A.D.3d 436, 981 N.Y.S.2d 516

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 6, 2014·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Determination of respondent Environmental Control Board (ECB), dated February 16, 2012, which, inter alia, found that petitioner violated Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-118.3.2 and New York City Zoning Resolution § 22-00, 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 [Manuel J. Mendez, J.], entered on or about March 19, 2013), dismissed, without costs.

The proceeding was properly transferred to this Court as it raised an issue of substantial evidence and respondents raised no objections in point of law requiring disposition by the Supreme Court (see CPLR 7803 [4]; 7804 [g]; see also Matter of Al Turi Landfill v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, [437]*43798 NY2d 758, 760 [2002]; Matter of O’Donnell v Rozzi, 99 AD2d 494 [2d Dept 1984]).

Respondent’s determination that petitioner’s premises were being used primarily as a transient hotel is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-182 [1978]), including the inspector’s unrefuted testimony that he entered 90% of the rooms, spoke to guests concerning the length of their stays, and observed that at least 60% of the premises was being used as a transient hotel. This conclusion was supported by, inter alia, the existence of rooms with three piece bathrooms with sealed toilet seats, towels placed on towel racks, coffee makers, mini-bars, the provision of housekeeping service, and a notice warning guests that staying past check-out time would cause them to be charged for an extra day (compare Terrilee 97th St., LLC v New York City Envtl. Control Bd., 102 AD3d 637 [1st Dept 2013]).

Petitioner failed to establish that its use as a transient hotel was a prior, lawful nonconforming use which existed at the time of the enactment of the relevant statutory provisions and continued thereafter, uninterrupted except for a period of up to two years (see Administrative Code § 27-111; NY City Zoning Resolution §§ 52-11, 52-61).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Gische, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Environmental Control Board (ECB), dated February 16, 2012, which, inter alia, found that petitioner violated Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-118.3.2 and New York City Zoning Resolution § 22-00, 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 [Manuel J. Mendez, J.], entered on or about March 19, 2013), dismissed, without costs.

The proceeding was properly transferred to this Court as it raised an issue of substantial evidence and respondents raised no objections in point of law requiring disposition by the Supreme Court (see CPLR 7803 [4]; 7804 [g]; see also Matter of Al Turi Landfill v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, [437]*43798 NY2d 758, 760 [2002]; Matter of O’Donnell v Rozzi, 99 AD2d 494 [2d Dept 1984]).

Respondent’s determination that petitioner’s premises were being used primarily as a transient hotel is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-182 [1978]), including the inspector’s unrefuted testimony that he entered 90% of the rooms, spoke to guests concerning the length of their stays, and observed that at least 60% of the premises was being used as a transient hotel. This conclusion was supported by, inter alia, the existence of rooms with three piece bathrooms with sealed toilet seats, towels placed on towel racks, coffee makers, mini-bars, the provision of housekeeping service, and a notice warning guests that staying past check-out time would cause them to be charged for an extra day (compare Terrilee 97th St., LLC v New York City Envtl. Control Bd., 102 AD3d 637 [1st Dept 2013]).

Petitioner failed to establish that its use as a transient hotel was a prior, lawful nonconforming use which existed at the time of the enactment of the relevant statutory provisions and continued thereafter, uninterrupted except for a period of up to two years (see Administrative Code § 27-111; NY City Zoning Resolution §§ 52-11, 52-61).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Gische, JJ.

Grand Imperial, LLC v. City of New York, 115 A.D.3d 436, 981 N.Y.S.2d 516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

115 A.D.3d 436 (Grand Imperial, LLC v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related