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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

233 A.D.2d 120, 649 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11410

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 120 (Hoy v. State of New York 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

Hoy v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 233 A.D.2d 120, 649 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered August 10,1995, which confirmed a determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) dated August 26, 1994, denying petitioner’s fair market rent appeal, and denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

DHCR’s determination, that vacancy decontrol did not apply to the subject apartment, had a rational basis. After the apartment was decontrolled pursuant to a stipulation between the rent controlled tenant and respondent-landlord, the rent controlled tenant remained on the lease as a co-tenant of petitioner for seven months. There was no "hiatus in possession”, because the rent controlled tenant was still entitled to the use or possession of the apartment after decontrol and after petitioner’s tenancy began (see, Matter of Ghignone v Joy, 55 NY2d 853, affg 83 AD2d 839; Matter of Veltri v Joy, 55 AD2d 529, 530, affd 43 NY2d 660).

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered August 10,1995, which confirmed a determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) dated August 26, 1994, denying petitioner’s fair market rent appeal, and denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

DHCR’s determination, that vacancy decontrol did not apply to the subject apartment, had a rational basis. After the apartment was decontrolled pursuant to a stipulation between the rent controlled tenant and respondent-landlord, the rent controlled tenant remained on the lease as a co-tenant of petitioner for seven months. There was no "hiatus in possession”, because the rent controlled tenant was still entitled to the use or possession of the apartment after decontrol and after petitioner’s tenancy began (see, Matter of Ghignone v Joy, 55 NY2d 853, affg 83 AD2d 839; Matter of Veltri v Joy, 55 AD2d 529, 530, affd 43 NY2d 660).

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 120, 649 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoy-v-state-of-new-york-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack