Jewnandan v. Commissioner, New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jewnandan v. Commissioner, New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

275 A.D.2d 415, 713 N.Y.S.2d 690, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8802

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 21, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated September 12, 1997, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated March 9, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) did not act illegally or arbitrarily in imposing a rent overcharge penalty based on rent overcharges which occurred before the petitioner took title to the building (see, 9 NYCRR 2526.1 [f ] [2]; Matter of DiMaggio v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 248 AD2d 533). Moreover, thé DHCR properly concluded that the petitioner had not submitted sufficient documentation to entitle him to a rent increase based on the installation of a new stove.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Florio, JJ., concur,

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated September 12, 1997, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated March 9, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) did not act illegally or arbitrarily in imposing a rent overcharge penalty based on rent overcharges which occurred before the petitioner took title to the building (see, 9 NYCRR 2526.1 [f ] [2]; Matter of DiMaggio v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 248 AD2d 533). Moreover, thé DHCR properly concluded that the petitioner had not submitted sufficient documentation to entitle him to a rent increase based on the installation of a new stove.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Florio, JJ., concur,

Jewnandan v. Commissioner, New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 275 A.D.2d 415, 713 N.Y.S.2d 690, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 415 (Jewnandan v. Commissioner, New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related