Mott v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

202 A.D.2d 354, 609 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 29, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 354 (Mott 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
Mott v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 202 A.D.2d 354, 609 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered December 1, 1992, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination imposing treble damages upon a finding that petitioner had willfully overcharged rent to his subtenant, unanimously modified, to the extent of annulling so much of respondent’s determination [355]*355which imposed treble damages upon petitioner and, as so modified, otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly deferred to respondent agency’s interpretation of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2522.5 (h) (4), (5) that an apartment rented pursuant to an interim lease after a conversion plan has been accepted for filing remains subject to regulation until the plan has been declared effective and the interim lessee has closed on the apartment, and that consequently petitioner was neither a proprietary lessee nor holder of unsold shares at the time the sublease was executed (see, Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206, 213). However, we find particular facts in the record to demonstrate that the overcharge was not willful so as to render so much of the agency’s finding to that effect to be arbitrary and capricious.

Accordingly, we modify the order appealed from to the extent of annulling so much of the respondent agency’s determination which imposed treble damages upon petitioner and, as so modified, the order is otherwise affirmed. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

789 St. Marks Realty Corp. v. Commissioner of the Division of Housing & Community Renewal
242 A.D.2d 634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
202 A.D.2d 354, 609 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mott-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1994.