Hampton Management v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hampton Management v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal

255 A.D.2d 261, 680 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12681

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 261 (Hampton Management 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

Hampton Management v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 255 A.D.2d 261, 680 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered April 16, 1997, which dismissed the petition, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s application for a Major Capital Improvement (MCI) increase because the application had not been filed within two years of the MCI’s completion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Review of the record does not indicate that respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) acted arbitrarily in promulgating Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2522.4 (a) (8), requiring applications for MCI increases to be filed within two years of MCI completion. Nor was this requirement arbitrarily applied in the instant case. The documentation provided by petitioner in support of its application, including the letter from counsel’s office responding to DHCR inquiries, provided DHCR a rational basis for its finding that the subject MCI was completed in March 1990, more than two years before petitioner’s MCI increase application. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered April 16, 1997, which dismissed the petition, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s application for a Major Capital Improvement (MCI) increase because the application had not been filed within two years of the MCI’s completion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Review of the record does not indicate that respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) acted arbitrarily in promulgating Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2522.4 (a) (8), requiring applications for MCI increases to be filed within two years of MCI completion. Nor was this requirement arbitrarily applied in the instant case. The documentation provided by petitioner in support of its application, including the letter from counsel’s office responding to DHCR inquiries, provided DHCR a rational basis for its finding that the subject MCI was completed in March 1990, more than two years before petitioner’s MCI increase application. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 261, 680 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hampton-management-v-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1998.