Lyndonville Properties v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lyndonville Properties v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

287 A.D.2d 413, 732 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10094

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 30, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered June 29, 2000, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal that petitioner landlord had overcharged its tenant, the complainant, for parking, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We find a rational basis in the record for respondent’s determination that the petitioner landlord’s garage facility, situated adjacent to its apartment building and directly accessible therefrom, constituted a “required service” provided primarily for the use of the tenants in the apartment building and, thus, that petitioner’s rental of parking privileges to its tenants was subject to the rent limitation guidelines of the Rent Stabilization Law (see, Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6 [r] [3], [4] [x]; see also, Matter of Netherland Operating Corp. v Eimicke, 135 AD2d 352, lv denied 71 NY2d 802). This being the case, we perceive no ground upon which respondent’s overcharge determination might be judicially disturbed (see, Matter of Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322, 329; Matter of Plaza Mgt. Co. v City Rent Agency, 48 AD2d 129, 131, affd 37 NY2d 837).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Lerner, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered June 29, 2000, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal that petitioner landlord had overcharged its tenant, the complainant, for parking, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We find a rational basis in the record for respondent’s determination that the petitioner landlord’s garage facility, situated adjacent to its apartment building and directly accessible therefrom, constituted a “required service” provided primarily for the use of the tenants in the apartment building and, thus, that petitioner’s rental of parking privileges to its tenants was subject to the rent limitation guidelines of the Rent Stabilization Law (see, Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6 [r] [3], [4] [x]; see also, Matter of Netherland Operating Corp. v Eimicke, 135 AD2d 352, lv denied 71 NY2d 802). This being the case, we perceive no ground upon which respondent’s overcharge determination might be judicially disturbed (see, Matter of Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322, 329; Matter of Plaza Mgt. Co. v City Rent Agency, 48 AD2d 129, 131, affd 37 NY2d 837).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Lerner, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

Lyndonville Properties v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 287 A.D.2d 413, 732 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

287 A.D.2d 413 (Lyndonville Properties v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related