Herman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

239 A.D.2d 305, 658 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5728

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 29, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered April 26, 1996, which denied petitioner landlord’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination of a rent overcharge and imposing treble damages, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Record support and a rational basis exist for respondent’s findings that petitioner failed to produce a credible rent history despite ample opportunity to do so, justifying use of the default formula for establishing the legal regulated rent (Matter of 61 Jane St. Assocs. v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 65 NY2d 898), and that petitioner failed to establish the nonwillfulness of the resulting overcharge, justifying the imposition of treble damages (Matter of Century Tower Assocs. v State of N. Y. Div. of Nous. & Community Renewal, 83 NY2d 819, 823). We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered April 26, 1996, which denied petitioner landlord’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination of a rent overcharge and imposing treble damages, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Record support and a rational basis exist for respondent’s findings that petitioner failed to produce a credible rent history despite ample opportunity to do so, justifying use of the default formula for establishing the legal regulated rent (Matter of 61 Jane St. Assocs. v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 65 NY2d 898), and that petitioner failed to establish the nonwillfulness of the resulting overcharge, justifying the imposition of treble damages (Matter of Century Tower Assocs. v State of N. Y. Div. of Nous. & Community Renewal, 83 NY2d 819, 823). We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Herman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 239 A.D.2d 305, 658 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

239 A.D.2d 305 (Herman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related