North Lake Apartments, LP v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

North Lake Apartments, LP v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

2017 NY Slip Op 5733, 152 A.D.3d 695, 55 N.Y.S.3d 908

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 14, 2017·No. 2016-02620·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated August 26, 2015, which denied a petition for administrative review and affirmed a Rent Administrator’s determination that a rent overcharge had occurred, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Everett, J.), dated January 14, 2016, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Judicial review of administrative determinations that were not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Riverside Tenants Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 133 AD3d 764, 766 [2015]). The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) (see Matter of 85 E. Parkway Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 297 AD2d 675, 676 [2002]). “The DHCR’s interpretation of the statutes and regulations it administers, if reasonable, must be upheld” (Matter of 85 E. Parkway Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 297 AD2d at 676; see Matter of Riverside Tenants Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 133 AD3d at 766).

*696 Here, the DHCR’s determination that a rent overcharge had occurred had a rational basis and was not arbitrary or capricious. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly confirmed the determination (see Matter of Metropolitan 118-80 Ltd. Partnership v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 83 AD3d 944, 944 [2011]; see generally Matter of 9215 Realty, LLC v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 136 AD3d 925, 925 [2016]; Matter of Rowe v Calogero, 56 AD3d 567 [2008]).

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated August 26, 2015, which denied a petition for administrative review and affirmed a Rent Administrator’s determination that a rent overcharge had occurred, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Everett, J.), dated January 14, 2016, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Judicial review of administrative determinations that were not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Riverside Tenants Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 133 AD3d 764, 766 [2015]). The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) (see Matter of 85 E. Parkway Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 297 AD2d 675, 676 [2002]). “The DHCR’s interpretation of the statutes and regulations it administers, if reasonable, must be upheld” (Matter of 85 E. Parkway Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 297 AD2d at 676; see Matter of Riverside Tenants Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 133 AD3d at 766).

*696 Here, the DHCR’s determination that a rent overcharge had occurred had a rational basis and was not arbitrary or capricious. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly confirmed the determination (see Matter of Metropolitan 118-80 Ltd. Partnership v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 83 AD3d 944, 944 [2011]; see generally Matter of 9215 Realty, LLC v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 136 AD3d 925, 925 [2016]; Matter of Rowe v Calogero, 56 AD3d 567 [2008]).

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

North Lake Apartments, LP v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 2017 NY Slip Op 5733, 152 A.D.3d 695, 55 N.Y.S.3d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 5733 (North Lake Apartments, LP v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related