Marciano v. Roldan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marciano v. Roldan

294 A.D.2d 440, 741 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4916

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

DecidedMay 13, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 440 (Marciano v. Roldan) 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

Marciano v. Roldan, 294 A.D.2d 440, 741 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated August 26, 1999, which upheld a determination of the district rent administrator that the tenant was entitled to treble damages for a rent overcharge, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated September 12, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, and the determination is annulled.

The determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) was arbitrary and capricious (see CPLR 7803 [3]). The DHCR failed to consider the parties’ settlement of a prior rent overcharge proceeding which it had approved (see 9 NYCRR 2520.13). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the petition. Goldstein, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, 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 Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated August 26, 1999, which upheld a determination of the district rent administrator that the tenant was entitled to treble damages for a rent overcharge, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated September 12, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, and the determination is annulled.

The determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) was arbitrary and capricious (see CPLR 7803 [3]). The DHCR failed to consider the parties’ settlement of a prior rent overcharge proceeding which it had approved (see 9 NYCRR 2520.13). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the petition. Goldstein, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 440, 741 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marciano-v-roldan-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack