Maya Realty Associates v. Holland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maya Realty Associates v. Holland

261 A.D.2d 405, 689 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4477

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

DecidedMay 3, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 405 (Maya Realty Associates v. Holland) 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

Maya Realty Associates v. Holland, 261 A.D.2d 405, 689 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4477 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Joseph Holland, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated June 25, 1997, which found that the petitioner had overcharged for rent and awarded treble damages, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated January 26, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Administrative Code of City of New York § 26-516 (a) provides that in the case of a rent overcharge, the landlord will be liable to the tenant for a penalty equal to three times the amount of the overcharge unless the landlord establishes that the overcharge was not willful (see, Matter of Century Tower Assocs. v State of N. Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 83 NY2d 819; Matter of 455 Ocean Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 241 AD2d 495). Here the petitioner, Maya Realty Associates, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the overcharge was not willful. Thus, the award of treble damages was appropriate (see, Matter of Century Tower Assocs. v State of N. Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, supra, at 823; Matter of 455 Ocean Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, supra, at 496).

Furthermore, the determination of the respondent clearly and with specificity advised the petitioner of those items submitted in support of the rental increase, which were disallowed. The burden rested upon the petitioner to establish entitlement to this increase by submitting documentation proving each specific improvement (see, Matter of Birdoff & Co. v [406]*406New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 204 AD2d 630). Thus, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the respondent’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Joseph Holland, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated June 25, 1997, which found that the petitioner had overcharged for rent and awarded treble damages, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated January 26, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Administrative Code of City of New York § 26-516 (a) provides that in the case of a rent overcharge, the landlord will be liable to the tenant for a penalty equal to three times the amount of the overcharge unless the landlord establishes that the overcharge was not willful (see, Matter of Century Tower Assocs. v State of N. Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 83 NY2d 819; Matter of 455 Ocean Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 241 AD2d 495). Here the petitioner, Maya Realty Associates, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the overcharge was not willful. Thus, the award of treble damages was appropriate (see, Matter of Century Tower Assocs. v State of N. Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, supra, at 823; Matter of 455 Ocean Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, supra, at 496).

Furthermore, the determination of the respondent clearly and with specificity advised the petitioner of those items submitted in support of the rental increase, which were disallowed. The burden rested upon the petitioner to establish entitlement to this increase by submitting documentation proving each specific improvement (see, Matter of Birdoff & Co. v [406]*406New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 204 AD2d 630). Thus, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the respondent’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 405, 689 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maya-realty-associates-v-holland-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack