Mid-City Associates v. New York City Water Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mid-City Associates v. New York City Water Board

290 A.D.2d 392, 739 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 899

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 392 (Mid-City Associates v. New York City Water Board) 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

Mid-City Associates v. New York City Water Board, 290 A.D.2d 392, 739 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered January 30, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent Water Board’s determination, dated February 9, 2000, denying petitioner’s application for a reduction of charges for water consumption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports respondents’ finding that one of the petitioner’s meters did not give accurate readings between January 1994 and April 1996 and, therefore, respondents’ decision to bill petitioner based on estimated consumption using representative average daily flows was rationally based and was not arbitrary and capricious and, accordingly, may not be judicially disturbed (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-232; Matter of Kenton Assoc. v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 225 AD2d 349). Nor do there exist grounds to disturb the challenged water charges based on the time periods used by respondents to calculate petitioner’s average daily flows, since there was a rational basis for respondents’ selection of the disputed time periods, accurate actual readings on both of petitioner’s meters having been obtained by respondents for those periods. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach 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 (Carol Huff, J.), entered January 30, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent Water Board’s determination, dated February 9, 2000, denying petitioner’s application for a reduction of charges for water consumption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports respondents’ finding that one of the petitioner’s meters did not give accurate readings between January 1994 and April 1996 and, therefore, respondents’ decision to bill petitioner based on estimated consumption using representative average daily flows was rationally based and was not arbitrary and capricious and, accordingly, may not be judicially disturbed (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-232; Matter of Kenton Assoc. v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 225 AD2d 349). Nor do there exist grounds to disturb the challenged water charges based on the time periods used by respondents to calculate petitioner’s average daily flows, since there was a rational basis for respondents’ selection of the disputed time periods, accurate actual readings on both of petitioner’s meters having been obtained by respondents for those periods. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 392, 739 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mid-city-associates-v-new-york-city-water-board-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack