Robertson v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robertson v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

254 A.D.2d 422, 678 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11066

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 19, 1998·Published

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated August 31, 1995, which confirmed the d etermination of the District Rent Administrator dated August 18, 1994, inter alia, establishing the rent for a [423]*423previously decontrolled apartment, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated November 7, 1996, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the determination of the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal rejecting their petition as an impermissible collateral attack on a 1978 order of decontrol was not arbitrary or capricious (see, CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206; Linick v Kev Realty Co., 147 AD2d 388, 391; Matter of Melohn v Joy, 60 AD2d 579; see also, Matter of Plaza Realty Investors v Aponte, 198 AD2d 164; Matter of Frankel Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 176 AD2d 617). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Florio, 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 Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated August 31, 1995, which confirmed the d etermination of the District Rent Administrator dated August 18, 1994, inter alia, establishing the rent for a [423]*423previously decontrolled apartment, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated November 7, 1996, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the determination of the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal rejecting their petition as an impermissible collateral attack on a 1978 order of decontrol was not arbitrary or capricious (see, CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206; Linick v Kev Realty Co., 147 AD2d 388, 391; Matter of Melohn v Joy, 60 AD2d 579; see also, Matter of Plaza Realty Investors v Aponte, 198 AD2d 164; Matter of Frankel Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 176 AD2d 617). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Robertson v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 254 A.D.2d 422, 678 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

254 A.D.2d 422 (Robertson v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related