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

162 A.D.2d 532, 556 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7329

This text of 162 A.D.2d 532 (Lev Realty Co. 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
Lev Realty Co. v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 162 A.D.2d 532, 556 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinions

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the State of New York, Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration, dated January 6, 1987, confirming its prior determination dated October 16, 1985, finding that the petitioner was entitled to a labor cost modification to the 1984/ 1985 maximum base rent of only $9.59 per month, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated June 5, 1987, which granted the petition and awarded the petitioner a monthly labor cost modification of $39.98.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed, on the merits.

We find that the appellant agency rationally interpreted the relevant provisions of the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations (see, 9 NYCRR part 2200 et seq.) in calculating the rent increase to which the petitioner was entitled, based upon excess labor costs for the 1984/1985 maximum base rent period (see, Matter of 160 Columbia Hgts. Corp. v Joy, 41 NY2d 1019; see also, Matter of Sigsbee Holding Corp. v Leventhal, 42 AD2d 561, affd 35 NY2d 862; Matter of Sherman v Gabel, 22 AD2d 889). Since the agency’s calculation had a rational basis, its determination should have been confirmed (see, Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434; Matter of Kaplen v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 131 AD2d 483). The letters submitted by the parties subsequent to oral argument are dehors the record and have not been considered on appeal. Kooper, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Howard v. Wyman
271 N.E.2d 528 (New York Court of Appeals, 1971)
Sigsbee Holding Corp. v. Leventhal
322 N.E.2d 273 (New York Court of Appeals, 1974)
Sherman v. Gabel
22 A.D.2d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
Sigsbee Holding Corp. v. Leventhal
42 A.D.2d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1973)
Kaplen v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
131 A.D.2d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 A.D.2d 532, 556 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lev-realty-co-v-state-of-new-york-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1990.