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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

256 A.D.2d 51, 680 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13042

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 3, 1998·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered on or about November 13, 1997, which denied petitioner landlord’s [52] application to annul respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s determination denying petitioner a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase for the installation of new windows and entry doors, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Deferring to respondent’s interpretation of the statutory requirement that an MCI must inure “to the benefit of all tenants” (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [2] [i] [c]; see, Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206, 213), and also to its expertise as to why a particular improvement should manifest defects over a particular period of time, denial of the MCI rent increase was rationally based on inspections revealing that the windows in at least 18% of the apartments had substantial defects, as did the entry and vestibule doors, and an absence of evidence demonstrating that such defects were due to wear and tear or vandalism rather than unworkmanlike installation (see, Matter of Wesley Ave. Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 206 AD2d 378). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, 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 (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered on or about November 13, 1997, which denied petitioner landlord’s [52] application to annul respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s determination denying petitioner a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase for the installation of new windows and entry doors, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Deferring to respondent’s interpretation of the statutory requirement that an MCI must inure “to the benefit of all tenants” (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [2] [i] [c]; see, Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206, 213), and also to its expertise as to why a particular improvement should manifest defects over a particular period of time, denial of the MCI rent increase was rationally based on inspections revealing that the windows in at least 18% of the apartments had substantial defects, as did the entry and vestibule doors, and an absence of evidence demonstrating that such defects were due to wear and tear or vandalism rather than unworkmanlike installation (see, Matter of Wesley Ave. Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 206 AD2d 378). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Simkowitz v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 256 A.D.2d 51, 680 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

256 A.D.2d 51 (Simkowitz v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related