Mayfair York Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

240 A.D.2d 158, 658 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5843
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 3, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 158 (Mayfair York Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & 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
Mayfair York Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 240 A.D.2d 158, 658 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered October 30, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination finding a rent overcharge and imposing treble damages, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s finding that certain work done to the subject apartment, claimed by petitioner to constitute "improvements” within the meaning of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2522.4 justifying a rent increase, amounted only to normal maintenance and repair necessarily entailed respondent’s expertise in evaluating the documentation and other factual data before it concerning this work, and is entitled to deference if not irrational or unreasonable (see, Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206, 213), which it is not. The record, which, among other factors, shows that most of the disallowed work was for painting, skim coating, partial floor replacement and partial rewiring, also supports respondent’s finding that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of willfulness, justifying the award of treble damages (see, Matter of 985 Fifth [159]*159Ave. v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 171 AD2d 572, lv denied 78 NY2d 861). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of 247-253 W. 116 LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
2019 NY Slip Op 8798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of 125 St. James Place LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
2018 NY Slip Op 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal
71 A.D.3d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Jemrock Realty Co. v. Krugman
64 A.D.3d 290 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Jemrock Realty Co., LLC v. Krugman
18 Misc. 3d 15 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
425 3rd Avenue Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
29 A.D.3d 332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Yorkroad Associates v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
19 A.D.3d 217 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
201 East 81st Street Associates v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
288 A.D.2d 89 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 A.D.2d 158, 658 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayfair-york-co-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1997.