H&H Equities v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

235 A.D.2d 360, 653 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 692
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 30, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 360 (H&H Equities v. New York State 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
H&H Equities v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 235 A.D.2d 360, 653 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bernard Burstein, J.), entered April 3, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination that extensive and hazardous plumbing problems in the premises warrant denial of the MCI rent increase for the repiping work that had been initially granted by the District Rent Administrator was not made in violation of respondent’s rules of review or petitioner’s right to due process, and was not arbitrary and capricious as lacking a rational basis in the record. The tenants’ initial complaints all mentioned leaks and plumbing problems and can be viewed as encompassing a broad range of problems both related and unrelated to the specific, plumbing work underlying the MCI application. Nor does due process require that petitioner had been served with the respondent’s inspection reports (Matter of Rubin v Eimicke, 150 AD2d 697, lv denied 75 NY2d 704) or with the list of pending Department of Housing Preservation and Development violations on which respondent also relied and for which petitioner can have no excuse being unaware. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments, including [361]*361that respondent’s Policy Statement 90-8 precludes it from denying an MCI rent increase for failure to maintain essential services unless it first issues a rent-reduction order, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Whitehouse Estates, Inc. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
5 A.D.3d 190 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
601 West Realty, L. L. C. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
284 A.D.2d 135 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Dayton Seaside Associates No. 2 v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
271 A.D.2d 529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Bel Air Leasing Ltd. Partnership v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal
259 A.D.2d 542 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Notre Dame Leasing v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal
251 A.D.2d 583 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 A.D.2d 360, 653 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hh-equities-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1997.