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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

15 A.D.3d 225, 788 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1284

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 225 (Riverton Associates 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

Riverton Associates v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 15 A.D.3d 225, 788 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[226]*226Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered December 2, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated September 24, 2002, denying petitioner’s application for a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, in seeking an MCI rent increase, failed to sustain its burden to establish that it complied with Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2522.4 (a) (see Matter of West Vil. Assoc. v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 277 AD2d 111, 113 [2000]). Petitioner contends that in light of the municipal sign-off on the renovations upon which its MCI rent increase application is based, the increase cannot be denied here. However, there is evidence here that the renovation did not benefit the tenants as confirmed by on-site inspection by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal. In these circumstances, the denial of an MCI rent increase is not arbitrary and capricious or irrational (see 9 NYCRR 2522.4 [a] [2] [i] [c]) and, accordingly, is not subject to judicial disturbance (see West Vil. Assoc., supra).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining points and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[226]*226Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered December 2, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated September 24, 2002, denying petitioner’s application for a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, in seeking an MCI rent increase, failed to sustain its burden to establish that it complied with Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2522.4 (a) (see Matter of West Vil. Assoc. v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 277 AD2d 111, 113 [2000]). Petitioner contends that in light of the municipal sign-off on the renovations upon which its MCI rent increase application is based, the increase cannot be denied here. However, there is evidence here that the renovation did not benefit the tenants as confirmed by on-site inspection by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal. In these circumstances, the denial of an MCI rent increase is not arbitrary and capricious or irrational (see 9 NYCRR 2522.4 [a] [2] [i] [c]) and, accordingly, is not subject to judicial disturbance (see West Vil. Assoc., supra).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining points and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 225, 788 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riverton-associates-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack