Rudin Management Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rudin Management Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

215 A.D.2d 243, 626 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5189

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

DecidedMay 16, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 243 (Rudin Management 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

Rudin Management Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 215 A.D.2d 243, 626 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper) Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered May 6, 1994, denying petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination disallowing a major capital improvement ("MCI”) rent increase and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order of the same court and Justice entered October 24, 1994 denying petitioner’s motion for reargument unanimously dismissed as non-appealable, without costs.

In order to qualify for an MCI rent increase, the improvement must both inure directly or indirectly to the benefit of all tenants in the building as well as include the same work performed on all similar components of the building (9 NYCRR 2522.4). Here, petitioner seeks an MCI rent increase based on total replacement of the 20th floor masonry parapet. Respondent has denied this request because the 20th floor parapet is not the only parapet in the building and accordingly may not qualify as a building-wide improvement pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Code (see, Matter of Simkowitz v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Sup Ct, NY County, Mar. 22, 1991, Nardelli, J., index No. 25251/8, affd 179 AD2d 477). Great deference is paid to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulations and since a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency but is relegated to a scope of review as to whether a rational basis exists to support the agency’s determination. We affirm the order and judgment dismissing the petition herein. Additionally, we reject petitioner’s contention that the Commissioner, on the administrative review, relied on a theory not advanced by the parties. The record demonstrates that at all times the question whether the 20th floor parapet work benefitted all tenants and constituted work on all similar components was an issue. Indeed, the section of the Code relied on by peti[244]*244tioner to obtain the MCI increase contains the specific criteria which petitioner now claims as surprise.

We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ross, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper) Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered May 6, 1994, denying petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination disallowing a major capital improvement ("MCI”) rent increase and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order of the same court and Justice entered October 24, 1994 denying petitioner’s motion for reargument unanimously dismissed as non-appealable, without costs.

In order to qualify for an MCI rent increase, the improvement must both inure directly or indirectly to the benefit of all tenants in the building as well as include the same work performed on all similar components of the building (9 NYCRR 2522.4). Here, petitioner seeks an MCI rent increase based on total replacement of the 20th floor masonry parapet. Respondent has denied this request because the 20th floor parapet is not the only parapet in the building and accordingly may not qualify as a building-wide improvement pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Code (see, Matter of Simkowitz v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Sup Ct, NY County, Mar. 22, 1991, Nardelli, J., index No. 25251/8, affd 179 AD2d 477). Great deference is paid to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulations and since a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency but is relegated to a scope of review as to whether a rational basis exists to support the agency’s determination. We affirm the order and judgment dismissing the petition herein. Additionally, we reject petitioner’s contention that the Commissioner, on the administrative review, relied on a theory not advanced by the parties. The record demonstrates that at all times the question whether the 20th floor parapet work benefitted all tenants and constituted work on all similar components was an issue. Indeed, the section of the Code relied on by peti[244]*244tioner to obtain the MCI increase contains the specific criteria which petitioner now claims as surprise.

We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ross, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 243, 626 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudin-management-co-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack