Matter of London Terrace Gardens L.P. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of London Terrace Gardens L.P. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal

2017 NY Slip Op 2907, 149 A.D.3d 521, 52 N.Y.S.3d 319

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

DecidedApril 13, 2017

Docket3723 101546/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2907 (Matter of London Terrace Gardens L.P. 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.

Bluebook

Matter of London Terrace Gardens L.P. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2017 NY Slip Op 2907, 149 A.D.3d 521, 52 N.Y.S.3d 319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered December 3, 2014, denying the petition seeking to annul a determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated September 30, 2013, which denied petitioner owner’s petition for administrative review (PAR) of a rent overcharge determination, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination is rationally based in the record, and not “arbitrary and capricious” (CPLR 7803 [3]; see Matter of Partnership 92 LP & Bldg. Mgt. Co., Inc. v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 46 AD3d 425, 428 [1st Dept 2007], affd 11 NY3d 859 [2008]). DHCR providently exercised its discretion in declining to accept a late-proffered invoice at the PAR stage, especially given the lack of an explanation for the delay (see 9 NYCRR 2527.5 [d]; 2529.6; Matter of Dworman v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 94 NY2d 359, 374 [1999]).

DHCR’s assessment of interest on overcharge amounts— including periods in which the tenant respondents paid the excessive rent into escrow, rather than to the owner — was consistent with the statutory purposes of discouraging overcharges and encouraging prompt repayment of overcharge amounts (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-516 [a]; 9 NYCRR 2526.1 [a] [1]; Mohassel v Fenwick, 5 NY3d 44, 52 [2005]; Mat *522 ter of 10th St. Assoc. LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 34 Misc 3d 1240[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50484[U], *5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2012], affd 110 AD3d 605 [1st Dept 2013]).

In determining the date of the last vacancy for purposes of computing the longevity increase, DHCR properly relied on the date of the earliest registered rent for the prior tenant (see Matter of Hawthorne Gardens v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 4 AD3d 135, 136 [1st Dept 2004]).

Petitioner was afforded adequate due process throughout the proceedings (see Matter of Beck-Nichols v Bianco, 20 NY3d 540, 559 [2013]; Matter of Griffin v City of New York, 127 AD3d 412, 412 [1st Dept 2015], appeal dismissed and lv denied 25 NY3d 1191 [2015]; 9 NYCRR 2527.5 [j]).

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered December 3, 2014, denying the petition seeking to annul a determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated September 30, 2013, which denied petitioner owner’s petition for administrative review (PAR) of a rent overcharge determination, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination is rationally based in the record, and not “arbitrary and capricious” (CPLR 7803 [3]; see Matter of Partnership 92 LP & Bldg. Mgt. Co., Inc. v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 46 AD3d 425, 428 [1st Dept 2007], affd 11 NY3d 859 [2008]). DHCR providently exercised its discretion in declining to accept a late-proffered invoice at the PAR stage, especially given the lack of an explanation for the delay (see 9 NYCRR 2527.5 [d]; 2529.6; Matter of Dworman v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 94 NY2d 359, 374 [1999]).

DHCR’s assessment of interest on overcharge amounts— including periods in which the tenant respondents paid the excessive rent into escrow, rather than to the owner — was consistent with the statutory purposes of discouraging overcharges and encouraging prompt repayment of overcharge amounts (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-516 [a]; 9 NYCRR 2526.1 [a] [1]; Mohassel v Fenwick, 5 NY3d 44, 52 [2005]; Mat *522 ter of 10th St. Assoc. LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 34 Misc 3d 1240[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50484[U], *5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2012], affd 110 AD3d 605 [1st Dept 2013]).

In determining the date of the last vacancy for purposes of computing the longevity increase, DHCR properly relied on the date of the earliest registered rent for the prior tenant (see Matter of Hawthorne Gardens v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 4 AD3d 135, 136 [1st Dept 2004]).

Petitioner was afforded adequate due process throughout the proceedings (see Matter of Beck-Nichols v Bianco, 20 NY3d 540, 559 [2013]; Matter of Griffin v City of New York, 127 AD3d 412, 412 [1st Dept 2015], appeal dismissed and lv denied 25 NY3d 1191 [2015]; 9 NYCRR 2527.5 [j]).

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2907, 149 A.D.3d 521, 52 N.Y.S.3d 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-london-terrace-gardens-lp-v-new-york-state-div-of-hous-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack