Michael M. Lee & Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Michael M. Lee & Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

210 A.D.2d 485, 620 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13131

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 485 (Michael M. Lee & 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

Michael M. Lee & Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 210 A.D.2d 485, 620 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant [486]*486to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated May 26, 1992, which upheld a finding of a rent ovércharge and directed a refund to be paid to the tenant, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated January 20, 1993, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s- contention, the respondent’s determination that the petitioner failed to provide the rent history documents which had been requested for the purpose of processing the tenant’s rent overcharge is supported by the record (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Under these circumstances, the resulting refund of the rent overcharge was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of 61 Jane St. Assocs. v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 65 NY2d 898).

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant [486]*486to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated May 26, 1992, which upheld a finding of a rent ovércharge and directed a refund to be paid to the tenant, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated January 20, 1993, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s- contention, the respondent’s determination that the petitioner failed to provide the rent history documents which had been requested for the purpose of processing the tenant’s rent overcharge is supported by the record (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Under these circumstances, the resulting refund of the rent overcharge was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of 61 Jane St. Assocs. v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 65 NY2d 898).

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 485, 620 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-m-lee-co-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack