Weinreb Management v. New York State Division of Housing & Community

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinreb Management v. New York State Division of Housing & Community

295 A.D.2d 232, 744 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6587

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

DecidedJune 20, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 232 (Weinreb Management v. New York State Division of Housing & Community) 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

Weinreb Management v. New York State Division of Housing & Community, 295 A.D.2d 232, 744 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered May 11, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated July 20, 2000, affirming the denial of petitioner’s application for a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent properly denied petitioner’s application for an MCI rent increase on the ground that the premises for which the increase was sought was affected with outstanding and unexplained immediately hazardous, i.e., “C,” violations (see, Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [13]; New York City Housing Maintenance Code [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 27-2115 [d]). Petitioner failed to submit evidence to the DHCR Administrator, either when the matter was initially considered or upon its reconsideration, that all “C” violations had been removed and thus failed to meet its burden to justify the rent increase sought (see, Matter of Brotherton v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 193 AD2d 500). In reaching the challenged determination, respondent properly relied on Department of Housing Preservation and Development inspection reports forwarded to it by petitioner (see, Matter of 251 W. 98th St. Owners v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 276 AD2d 265). Finally, respondent’s refusal to grant petitioner a conditional increase pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code § 2522.4 (a) (13) was rationally based on the administrative record and, accordingly, constituted a proper exercise of respondent’s discretion (see, Matter of Residential Mgt. v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 234 AD2d 154). Concur— Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered May 11, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated July 20, 2000, affirming the denial of petitioner’s application for a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent properly denied petitioner’s application for an MCI rent increase on the ground that the premises for which the increase was sought was affected with outstanding and unexplained immediately hazardous, i.e., “C,” violations (see, Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [13]; New York City Housing Maintenance Code [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 27-2115 [d]). Petitioner failed to submit evidence to the DHCR Administrator, either when the matter was initially considered or upon its reconsideration, that all “C” violations had been removed and thus failed to meet its burden to justify the rent increase sought (see, Matter of Brotherton v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 193 AD2d 500). In reaching the challenged determination, respondent properly relied on Department of Housing Preservation and Development inspection reports forwarded to it by petitioner (see, Matter of 251 W. 98th St. Owners v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 276 AD2d 265). Finally, respondent’s refusal to grant petitioner a conditional increase pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code § 2522.4 (a) (13) was rationally based on the administrative record and, accordingly, constituted a proper exercise of respondent’s discretion (see, Matter of Residential Mgt. v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 234 AD2d 154). Concur— Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 232, 744 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinreb-management-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack