Greenwich Leasing, LLC v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenwich Leasing, LLC v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal

91 A.D.3d 949, 937 N.Y.2d 605

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 949 (Greenwich Leasing, LLC v. 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

Greenwich Leasing, LLC v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 91 A.D.3d 949, 937 N.Y.2d 605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

We agree with the petitioner that, under the circumstances of this case, it was a denial of due process for the New York State [950]*950Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) to fail to provide it with copies of photographs taken by the DHCR’s inspector and tenant responses to its petition for administrative review (hereinafter PAR), which the DHCR relied upon in denying the PAR on the ground that certain work which was claimed for a major capital improvement (hereinafter MCI) rent increase was performed in an unworkmanlike manner. In the context of a DHCR proceeding upon an MCI application, where the determination is based upon evidentiary submissions by the parties, “due process requires . . . that reasonable notice be afforded to the parties to a proceeding and that they have an opportunity to present their objection” (Matter of Rubin v Eimicke, 150 AD2d 697, 698 [1989]).

Here, the Rent Administrator denied the petitioner’s request for a MCI rent increase for certain elevator cab work based on a statement in an inspector’s report that it did not appear that a new elevator cab had been recently installed. In its PAR, the petitioner submitted proof rebutting that contention. By failing to provide the petitioner with the inspector’s photographs and tenant responses to the PAR, the DHCR deprived the petitioner of the ability to present its objection to the claim, of which it was not on notice, that the work at issue was not done in a workmanlike manner.

Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the DHCR to afford the petitioner an opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the claim that the work at issue was not performed in a workmanlike manner, and for a new determination thereafter on the PAR upon the DHCR’s due consideration of any such evidence submitted by the petitioner. Balkin, J.E, Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

We agree with the petitioner that, under the circumstances of this case, it was a denial of due process for the New York State [950]*950Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) to fail to provide it with copies of photographs taken by the DHCR’s inspector and tenant responses to its petition for administrative review (hereinafter PAR), which the DHCR relied upon in denying the PAR on the ground that certain work which was claimed for a major capital improvement (hereinafter MCI) rent increase was performed in an unworkmanlike manner. In the context of a DHCR proceeding upon an MCI application, where the determination is based upon evidentiary submissions by the parties, “due process requires . . . that reasonable notice be afforded to the parties to a proceeding and that they have an opportunity to present their objection” (Matter of Rubin v Eimicke, 150 AD2d 697, 698 [1989]).

Here, the Rent Administrator denied the petitioner’s request for a MCI rent increase for certain elevator cab work based on a statement in an inspector’s report that it did not appear that a new elevator cab had been recently installed. In its PAR, the petitioner submitted proof rebutting that contention. By failing to provide the petitioner with the inspector’s photographs and tenant responses to the PAR, the DHCR deprived the petitioner of the ability to present its objection to the claim, of which it was not on notice, that the work at issue was not done in a workmanlike manner.

Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the DHCR to afford the petitioner an opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the claim that the work at issue was not performed in a workmanlike manner, and for a new determination thereafter on the PAR upon the DHCR’s due consideration of any such evidence submitted by the petitioner. Balkin, J.E, Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 949, 937 N.Y.2d 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenwich-leasing-llc-v-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack