MATTER OF ASEN BROS. & BROOK v. Leventhal

428 N.E.2d 390, 54 N.Y.2d 839, 444 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3048
New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 13, 1981·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate,Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the question certified answered in the affirmative.

Petitioner’s application for “first rents” was denied by the commissioner upon the ground that the renovations undertaken by it did not constitute a substantial rehabilitation of the rental premises. Although petitioner expended in excess of $100,000 on improvements, there was evidence to support the commission’s determination that no structural changes were made and that the 15-apartment complex remained unchanged. Under these circumstances, the commissioner’s determination to deny “first rents” had a rational basis, was not arbitrary or capricious, and, therefore, should not be disturbed. (Administrative Code of City of New York, § Y51-5.0, subd c, par [1] ; § Y51-9.0, subd b; Matter of Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322, 329; see CPLR 7803, subd 3.)

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

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.

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

MATTER OF ASEN BROS. & BROOK v. Leventhal, 428 N.E.2d 390, 54 N.Y.2d 839, 444 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3048 (N.Y. 1981).

428 N.E.2d 390 (MATTER OF ASEN BROS. & BROOK v. Leventhal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Velasquez v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
130 A.D.3d 1045 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
300 West 49th Street Associates v. New York State Division of Housing
212 A.D.2d 250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Keating v. Carey
706 F.2d 377 (Second Circuit, 1983)
Fazio v. Joy
444 N.E.2d 990 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)