In the Matter of 333 East 49th Associates, Lp v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration

879 N.E.2d 158, 9 N.Y.3d 982, 849 N.Y.S.2d 19
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 27, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 879 N.E.2d 158 (In the Matter of 333 East 49th Associates, Lp v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In the Matter of 333 East 49th Associates, Lp v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration, 879 N.E.2d 158, 9 N.Y.3d 982, 849 N.Y.S.2d 19 (N.Y. 2007).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

A rational basis exists for the Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s determination that petitioners failed to maintain adequate janitorial services warranting a rent reduction (see Matter of Gilman v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 99 NY2d 144, 149 [2002]). The determination, implicitly rejecting petitioners’ claim that the violation was de minimis, is rationally based on the inspector’s observations of debris in the compactor rooms, which confirmed the tenants’ sworn complaint of filthy compactor rooms that were not maintained. DHCR’s determination that petitioners reduced services by failing to maintain the compactor rooms was not irrational and must be sustained (see Matter of KSLM-Columbus Apts., Inc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Re *984 newal, 5 NY3d 303, 312 [2005]; Matter of Mid-State Mgt. Corp. v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 112 AD2d 72, 75-76 [1st Dept 1985], affd 66 NY2d 1032 [1985]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo and Jones concur; Judges Read, Smith and Pigott dissent and vote to reverse for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum by Justice George D. Marlow at the Appellate Division (40 AD3d 516, 517-520 [2007]).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Jamaica Estates, LLC v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
78 A.D.3d 1053 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
68 Apartment Associates, Inc. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
71 A.D.3d 1031 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
879 N.E.2d 158, 9 N.Y.3d 982, 849 N.Y.S.2d 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-333-east-49th-associates-lp-v-new-york-state-division-of-ny-2007.