Merit Management L. L. C. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merit Management L. L. C. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

278 A.D.2d 178, 718 N.Y.S.2d 336, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13796

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 28, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered August 26, 1999, which denied petitioner landlord’s application to annul respondent DHCR’s determination finding a rent overcharge and imposing treble damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner willfully overcharged rent is rationally supported by evidence that improvements petitioner claims it made to the apartment after the previous tenant moved out and before respondent tenant moved in, and which petitioner claims justified a l/40th increase in rent, were not made at that time. We reject petitioner’s claim that such a finding could not be rationally made without an evidentiary hearing or inspection of the apartment, where petitioner failed to come forward with evidence answering the affidavit of tenant’s architect ás to the age of the improvements, and the bills petitioner submitted to prove the improvements could be found, as respondent indicated, not to be genuine (see, Matter of Lucot, Inc. v Gabel, 20 AD2d 94, affd 15 NY2d 774). Concur— Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered August 26, 1999, which denied petitioner landlord’s application to annul respondent DHCR’s determination finding a rent overcharge and imposing treble damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner willfully overcharged rent is rationally supported by evidence that improvements petitioner claims it made to the apartment after the previous tenant moved out and before respondent tenant moved in, and which petitioner claims justified a l/40th increase in rent, were not made at that time. We reject petitioner’s claim that such a finding could not be rationally made without an evidentiary hearing or inspection of the apartment, where petitioner failed to come forward with evidence answering the affidavit of tenant’s architect ás to the age of the improvements, and the bills petitioner submitted to prove the improvements could be found, as respondent indicated, not to be genuine (see, Matter of Lucot, Inc. v Gabel, 20 AD2d 94, affd 15 NY2d 774). Concur— Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Merit Management L. L. C. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 278 A.D.2d 178, 718 N.Y.S.2d 336, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

278 A.D.2d 178 (Merit Management L. L. C. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related