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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

6 A.D.3d 360, 775 N.Y.S.2d 153, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5043

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

DecidedApril 29, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 360 (Soderberg 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

Soderberg v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 6 A.D.3d 360, 775 N.Y.S.2d 153, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), entered on or about June 27, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CFLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated October 2, 2002, granting respondent owners’ petition for administrative review and finding that the subject apartment was not subject to the city rent control law during the period of petitioners’ tenancy, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having failed to oppose the owners’ petition for administrative review, the tenants could not raise before the court the factual issues they claimed entitle them to rent-controlled status (see Matter of Steffey v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 276 AD2d 407 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 709 [2001]). The agency properly determined, based on its expertise in such matters and in the construction of the regulations it administers, that there had been a “substantial alteration” warranting decontrol.

We have considered petitioners’ other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, 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 (Charles Tejada, J.), entered on or about June 27, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CFLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated October 2, 2002, granting respondent owners’ petition for administrative review and finding that the subject apartment was not subject to the city rent control law during the period of petitioners’ tenancy, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having failed to oppose the owners’ petition for administrative review, the tenants could not raise before the court the factual issues they claimed entitle them to rent-controlled status (see Matter of Steffey v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 276 AD2d 407 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 709 [2001]). The agency properly determined, based on its expertise in such matters and in the construction of the regulations it administers, that there had been a “substantial alteration” warranting decontrol.

We have considered petitioners’ other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 360, 775 N.Y.S.2d 153, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soderberg-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-2004.