Morina v. Berman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morina v. Berman

31 A.D.2d 630, 295 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2795

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 630 (Morina v. Berman) 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

Morina v. Berman, 31 A.D.2d 630, 295 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review a determination by the City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator of the City of New York that certain housing accommodations are subject to rent control and are not qualified for decontrol, the Administrator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered November 14, 1967, which annulled the determination and directed him to declare the subject premises decontrolled. Judg[631]*631ment reversed, on the law, with costs, determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, the Administrator’s finding that the subject premises were operated as a horizontal multiple dwelling has a rational basis in the “record” (Matter of Colton v. Berman, 21 N Y 2d 322; Matter of Cuccia V. Weaver, 9 A D 2d 689). Furthermore, we believe that it is within the Administrator’s discretion to determine whether petitioners are nonprofessional landlords; and, under the circumstances herein, involving more than four rental units, his conclusion was not arbitrary or capricious. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review a determination by the City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator of the City of New York that certain housing accommodations are subject to rent control and are not qualified for decontrol, the Administrator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered November 14, 1967, which annulled the determination and directed him to declare the subject premises decontrolled. Judg[631]*631ment reversed, on the law, with costs, determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, the Administrator’s finding that the subject premises were operated as a horizontal multiple dwelling has a rational basis in the “record” (Matter of Colton v. Berman, 21 N Y 2d 322; Matter of Cuccia V. Weaver, 9 A D 2d 689). Furthermore, we believe that it is within the Administrator’s discretion to determine whether petitioners are nonprofessional landlords; and, under the circumstances herein, involving more than four rental units, his conclusion was not arbitrary or capricious. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 630, 295 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morina-v-berman-nyappdiv-1968.