Prospect Associates v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prospect Associates v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

206 A.D.2d 374, 614 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7087

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 5, 1994·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review two determinations of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, both dated January 15, 1991, which denied the petitioners’ respective requests for major capital improvement rent increases, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered November 18, 1992, which granted the petitions for rent increases with respect to the installation of backflow prevention devices.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal denying the petitioners’ requests for major capital improvement rent increases relating to the installation of backflow prevention devices was not irrational or unreasonable, even though these devices are required by law (see, Matter of 126 Franklin Ave. Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 203 AD2d 464; Matter of Harbor One Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 205 AD2d 689). Thus, the determination must be upheld (see, Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206; Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Joy and Goldstein, 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 two determinations of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, both dated January 15, 1991, which denied the petitioners’ respective requests for major capital improvement rent increases, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered November 18, 1992, which granted the petitions for rent increases with respect to the installation of backflow prevention devices.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal denying the petitioners’ requests for major capital improvement rent increases relating to the installation of backflow prevention devices was not irrational or unreasonable, even though these devices are required by law (see, Matter of 126 Franklin Ave. Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 203 AD2d 464; Matter of Harbor One Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 205 AD2d 689). Thus, the determination must be upheld (see, Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206; Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Prospect Associates v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 206 A.D.2d 374, 614 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

206 A.D.2d 374 (Prospect Associates v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related