Hattar v. Lynch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hattar v. Lynch

253 A.D.2d 764, 677 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9410

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 764 (Hattar v. Lynch) 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

Hattar v. Lynch, 253 A.D.2d 764, 677 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated April 1, 1997, which denied a petition for administrative review and affirmed an order of the District Rent Administrator dated May 31, 1996, which determined that the petitioners’ property was not subject to decontrol, and fixed the maximum collectible rent for the property, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated July 14, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly found that the respondent’s determination that the petitioners failed to submit adequate proof of structural changes or substantial alterations to warrant exemption from rent control under 9 NYCRR 2100.11 (a), was not arbitrary, capricious, or irrational (see, Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784, 791).

The petitioners’ remaining contention is without merit. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated April 1, 1997, which denied a petition for administrative review and affirmed an order of the District Rent Administrator dated May 31, 1996, which determined that the petitioners’ property was not subject to decontrol, and fixed the maximum collectible rent for the property, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated July 14, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly found that the respondent’s determination that the petitioners failed to submit adequate proof of structural changes or substantial alterations to warrant exemption from rent control under 9 NYCRR 2100.11 (a), was not arbitrary, capricious, or irrational (see, Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784, 791).

The petitioners’ remaining contention is without merit. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 764, 677 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hattar-v-lynch-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack