Rickman Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rickman Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

299 A.D.2d 552, 750 N.Y.S.2d 518

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

DecidedNovember 25, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 299 A.D.2d 552 (Rickman Realty Corp. 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

Rickman Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 299 A.D.2d 552, 750 N.Y.S.2d 518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[553]*553Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) reasonably and rationally determined that the installation of windows in a defective and unworkmanlike manner was not a “major capital improvement,” notwithstanding the passage of time between the installation of the windows and the DHCR’s inspection (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [2]; see Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn, v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206; Matter of 36-08 Queens Realty v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 222 AD2d 440; Matter of Wesley Ave. Assoc, v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 206 AD2d 378; Matter of West Vil. Assoc, v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 277 AD2d 111; Matter of Simkowitz v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 256 AD2d 51). Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, O’Brien and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[553]*553Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) reasonably and rationally determined that the installation of windows in a defective and unworkmanlike manner was not a “major capital improvement,” notwithstanding the passage of time between the installation of the windows and the DHCR’s inspection (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [2]; see Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn, v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206; Matter of 36-08 Queens Realty v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 222 AD2d 440; Matter of Wesley Ave. Assoc, v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 206 AD2d 378; Matter of West Vil. Assoc, v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 277 AD2d 111; Matter of Simkowitz v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 256 AD2d 51). Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, O’Brien and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 552, 750 N.Y.S.2d 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rickman-realty-corp-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack