Waljoy Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

242 A.D.2d 635, 664 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9050
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 22, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 635 (Waljoy Realty 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
Waljoy Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 242 A.D.2d 635, 664 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated April 28, 1995, which found that the petitioner’s premises constituted a horizontal multiple dwelling subject to rent regulation, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered April 9, 1996, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

[636]*636Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that horizontal multiple dwellings may be subject to rent regulation provided that they share common ownership, management, operation, and facilities so as to warrant treating the housing as an integral unit (McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 8625 [a] [4]; see, Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784, 792; see also, Matter of Triades v Mirabal, 172 AD2d 541, 542). The interpretation by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter DHCR) of the statutes it administers, if not unreasonable or irrational, is entitled to deference (see, Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, supra, at 791). Contrary to the petitioner’s assertions, the determination by the DHCR that the petitioner’s five buildings constituted a horizontal multiple dwelling subject to rent regulation was not arbitrary and capricious (see, CPLR 7803 [3]). Thompson, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Mendoza v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
2020 NY Slip Op 2614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Julia 455, LLC v. State of New York, Division of Housing & Community Renewal
104 A.D.3d 686 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Livingston Associates v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
289 A.D.2d 245 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Derfner Management Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
252 A.D.2d 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
242 A.D.2d 635, 664 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waljoy-realty-co-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1997.