MATTER OF ASEN BROS. & BROOK v. Leventhal

New York Court of Appeals

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

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 13, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 428 N.E.2d 390 (MATTER OF ASEN BROS. & BROOK v. Leventhal) 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 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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

428 N.E.2d 390, 54 N.Y.2d 839, 444 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-asen-bros-brook-v-leventhal-ny-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack