Home/New York Court of Appeals/Matter of Alcoma Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

Matter of Alcoma Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

79 N.Y.2d 834
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 9, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 79 N.Y.2d 834 (Matter of Alcoma Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Alcoma Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, 79 N.Y.2d 834 (N.Y. 1992).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not be answered as unnecessary.

Petitioner — the owner of a previously rent controlled apartment — served, by mail, a DC-2 notice on the first rent-stabilized tenant in occupancy, informing the tenant of its right to file a Fair Market Rent Appeal. When the tenant thereafter filed such an appeal, petitioner challenged it on timeliness grounds, arguing that the former Code of the Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc., required that the appeal be filed within 90 days of the tenant’s receipt of the DC-2 notice even though the notice was not served by certified mail. The New York State Division of Housing and Commu *836 nity Renewal (DHCR) ultimately rejected this contention. Petitioner contends that it erred in doing so. We disagree. Section 26 (A) of the former Code provides that the owner of a previously rent-controlled apartment "shall” serve a DC-2 notice upon the first rent-stabilized tenant in occupancy "by certified mail” (emphasis supplied). Section 25 (B) then provides that the tenant must file its Fair Market Rent Appeal "within ninety (90) days after [it] receives the [DC-2 notice] as required by Section 26 (A)” (emphasis supplied). DHCR interpreted these provisions as requiring that the owner serve the DC-2 notice by certified mail before the 90-day limitation period for filing^. Fair Market Rent Appeal commences to run. Inasmuch as this interpretation is neither unreasonable nor irrational, there is no basis for disturbing it (see, Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784, 791).

We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in a memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, etc.

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

Related

Wright v. State of N.Y.
2021 NY Slip Op 01452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People ex rel. Wright v. Coveny
2020 NY Slip Op 06332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Blond
96 A.D.3d 1149 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
London Terrace Assocsiates v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
35 Misc. 3d 525 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)
Gersten v. 56 7th Avenue LLC
88 A.D.3d 189 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Semrau
77 A.D.3d 1436 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Porter v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
51 A.D.3d 417 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Dalton
27 A.D.3d 779 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Cole
24 A.D.3d 1021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Anthony C.
6 Misc. 3d 616 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)
People v. Glanda
5 A.D.3d 945 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Sherwood 34 Associates v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
309 A.D.2d 529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Hagenbuch
267 A.D.2d 948 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Estate of Goldman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
228 A.D.2d 192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Flores
226 A.D.2d 181 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Watkins
226 A.D.2d 173 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Wilberto R.
220 A.D.2d 332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Parcel 242 Realty v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
215 A.D.2d 132 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Deary
212 A.D.2d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
M.H.A. Realty Corp. v. Cole
163 Misc. 2d 300 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 N.Y.2d 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-alcoma-corp-v-new-york-state-div-of-hous-cmty-renewal-ny-1992.