Reads Development Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reads Development Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

282 A.D.2d 273, 722 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3587

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

DecidedApril 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 273 (Reads Development Co. 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

Reads Development Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 282 A.D.2d 273, 722 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered February 7, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the May 4, 1999 order of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) establishing the lawful stabilized rent of the subject premises at $308.80 as of the May 20, 1992 base date, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly determined that DHCR reasonably applied the four-year rent history review limitation of the New York Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 (RRRA), which limitation is to be applied to any action or proceeding in any court or any application, complaint or proceeding before an administrative agency, as of the Act’s effective date of June 19, 1997 (see, Zafra v Pilkes, 245 AD2d 218, 219). DHCR’s application of the RRRA limitation was consistent with the Act’s policy and intent, notwithstanding the absence of an overcharge complaint respecting the subject apartment.

Petitioner’s claim that the relevant four-year rent history demonstrated a preferential rent is unsupported.

We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining claims, and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P„, Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered February 7, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the May 4, 1999 order of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) establishing the lawful stabilized rent of the subject premises at $308.80 as of the May 20, 1992 base date, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly determined that DHCR reasonably applied the four-year rent history review limitation of the New York Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 (RRRA), which limitation is to be applied to any action or proceeding in any court or any application, complaint or proceeding before an administrative agency, as of the Act’s effective date of June 19, 1997 (see, Zafra v Pilkes, 245 AD2d 218, 219). DHCR’s application of the RRRA limitation was consistent with the Act’s policy and intent, notwithstanding the absence of an overcharge complaint respecting the subject apartment.

Petitioner’s claim that the relevant four-year rent history demonstrated a preferential rent is unsupported.

We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining claims, and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P„, Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 273, 722 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reads-development-co-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack