Matter of 647 Prospect, LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
This text of Matter of 647 Prospect, LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal (Matter of 647 Prospect, LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of 647 Prospect, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
2026 NY Slip Op 04294
July 8, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of 647 Prospect, LLC, appellant,
v
New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, respondent-respondent; Joshua Feintuch, intervenor-respondent.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 8, 2026
2024-09067, (Index No. 508536/23)
Mark C. Dillon, J.P.
Angela G. Iannacci
Deborah A. Dowling
James P. McCormack, JJ.
Kucker Marino Winiarsky & Bittens, LLP, New York, NY (Nicole M. Sosnowski, Nativ Winiarsky, and Patrick Munson of counsel), for appellant.
Mark F. Palomino, New York, NY (Christina S. Ossi of counsel), for respondent-respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated January 18, 2023, which denied a petition for administrative review and affirmed a determination of a Rent Administrator dated September 22, 2022, finding a rent overcharge, the petitioner appeals from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Anne J. Swern, J.), dated May 21, 2024. The amended judgment, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In June 2017, a tenant in a residential apartment owned by the petitioner in Brooklyn filed an administrative complaint alleging a rent overcharge. In a determination dated September 22, 2022, a Rent Administrator of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) determined that the tenant was overcharged and that the base date was in June 2013 (hereinafter the 2022 determination). The Rent Administrator also determined the base date rent to be $888.74, which it calculated pursuant to a DHCR rent overcharge order issued in November 2014 (hereinafter the 2014 rent overcharge order) finding a rent overcharge by the petitioner for the subject apartment in connection with a prior tenant. The 2014 rent overcharge order directed the petitioner to roll back the rent to the legal regulated rent, to recompute the rent at the time of the 2014 rent overcharge order based thereon, and to register the proper legal regulated rent and base future increases on that amount. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for administrative review of the 2022 determination, asserting that the Rent Administrator had improperly calculated the base date rent pursuant to the 2014 rent overcharge order because that order was premised on the rental history of the apartment prior to the June 2013 base date. In a determination dated January 18, 2023, a Deputy Commissioner of the DHCR affirmed the 2022 determination.
In March 2023, the petitioner commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the Deputy Commissioner's January 18, 2023 determination. In an amended [*2]judgment dated May 21, 2024, the Supreme Court, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.
"'Judicial review of an administrative determination is generally limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion'" (Matter of Teore v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 234 AD3d 860, 861, quoting Matter of CHT Place, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 219 AD3d 486, 487; see CPLR 7803[3]). "'An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts'" (Matter of 88-05 171, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 230 AD3d 679, 680, quoting Matter of CHT Place, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 219 AD3d 486, 487). "If the court finds that the determination is supported by a rational basis, it must sustain the determination even if the court concludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by the agency" (Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431; see Matter of McCollum v City of New York, 184 AD3d 838, 840).
At the time that the subject rent overcharge complaint was filed, "rent overcharge claims [were] generally subject to a four-year statute of limitations and no award of the amount of an overcharge could be based upon an overcharge having occurred more than four years before the complaint was filed" (Matter of Fairley v State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Rewewal, 214 AD3d 800, 801 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] former § 26- 516[a][2]). The DCHR regulations provide that, in order to determine whether there was a rent overcharge, "[t]he legal regulated rent . . . shall be deemed to be the rent charged on the base date," plus any lawful increases and adjustments (9 NYCRR 2526.1[a][3][i]; see Matter of Fairley v State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Rewewal, 214 AD3d at 801).
Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the DHCR properly considered the 2014 rent overcharge order in determining the rent charged on the June 2013 base date and the overcharges, as the 2014 rent overcharge order was issued within the applicable four-year limitations period and imposed obligations on the petitioner with respect to the June 2013 base date (see e.g. Matter of Cintron v Calogero, 15 NY3d 347, 356; Matter of Simon Green, Inc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 228 AD3d 670, 672; Onate v Fernandez, 184 AD3d 725, 726-727). The petitioner's contention that consideration of the 2014 rent overcharge order was improper absent a showing that the petitioner engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartment is also without merit (see Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 NY3d 332, 348).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
DILLON, J.P., IANNACCI, DOWLING and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Matter of 647 Prospect, LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-647-prospect-llc-v-new-york-state-div-of-hous-community-nyappdiv-2026.