Mapama Corp. v. New York City Loft Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mapama Corp. v. New York City Loft Board

95 A.D.3d 785, 945 N.Y.S.2d 668

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 31, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 95 A.D.3d 785 (Mapama Corp. v. New York City Loft Board) 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

Mapama Corp. v. New York City Loft Board, 95 A.D.3d 785, 945 N.Y.S.2d 668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[786]*786Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered March 16, 2011, denying the petition to annul respondent New York City Loft Board’s determination, dated May 20, 2010, which denied petitioner’s application for an extension of time to legalize loft units for residential occupancy, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination had a rational basis. The request petitioner made before the deadline expired contained numerous procedural defects pursuant to 29 RCNY 2-01 (b), including petitioner’s failure to complete the application form prescribed by respondent (subd [b] [4]). Moreover, the application it made thereafter, although submitted on the proper form, was untimely, since it was filed in December 2009, long after the May 1, 2007 deadline it sought to extend (29 RCNY 2-01 [b] [1]). The parties’ stipulation of settlement required petitioner, if it applied for an extension, to comply with 29 RCNY 2-01 (b). Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the December 2009 application did not constitute an amendment to an extension application pursuant to 29 RCNY 2-01 (b) (4), since there was no application pending when it was made. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ. [Prior Case History: 30 Misc 3d 1234(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 50355(U).]

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

[786]*786Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered March 16, 2011, denying the petition to annul respondent New York City Loft Board’s determination, dated May 20, 2010, which denied petitioner’s application for an extension of time to legalize loft units for residential occupancy, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination had a rational basis. The request petitioner made before the deadline expired contained numerous procedural defects pursuant to 29 RCNY 2-01 (b), including petitioner’s failure to complete the application form prescribed by respondent (subd [b] [4]). Moreover, the application it made thereafter, although submitted on the proper form, was untimely, since it was filed in December 2009, long after the May 1, 2007 deadline it sought to extend (29 RCNY 2-01 [b] [1]). The parties’ stipulation of settlement required petitioner, if it applied for an extension, to comply with 29 RCNY 2-01 (b). Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the December 2009 application did not constitute an amendment to an extension application pursuant to 29 RCNY 2-01 (b) (4), since there was no application pending when it was made. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ. [Prior Case History: 30 Misc 3d 1234(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 50355(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 785, 945 N.Y.S.2d 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mapama-corp-v-new-york-city-loft-board-nyappdiv-2012.