Jemrock Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community

245 A.D.2d 92, 666 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12900
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 11, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 92 (Jemrock Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community) 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
Jemrock Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community, 245 A.D.2d 92, 666 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered October 1, 1996, which denied petitioner landlord’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination establishing the fair market initial stabilized rent for the subject apartment, and directed a refund to the tenant for past overpayment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim that it was denied due process by respondent’s failure to give it notice and opportunity to submit comparability data under amendments to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code that potentially increased the number of apartments that petitioner could have used in respondent’s comparability study of the subject apartment was not made at the administrative level and therefore may not be considered for the first time upon judicial review (see, Matter of Parcel 242 Realty v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 215 AD2d 132, 134, lv denied 86 NY2d 706). In any event, the claim lacks merit, there being no requirement that respondent have notified petitioner of such amendments. Moreover, since the tenant’s rent overcharge complaint, later converted to a fair market rent appeal, was filed in November 1983, respondent’s order determining the initial legal regulated rent was properly based on the law and code provisions in effect prior to April 1, 1984 (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2521.1 [d] [1]; Matter of 319 E. 50th St. Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 198 AD2d 28). We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without [93]*93merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

14 L. Pierre Associates v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal
283 A.D.2d 192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Putorti v. Safir
249 A.D.2d 207 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 A.D.2d 92, 666 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jemrock-realty-co-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-nyappdiv-1997.