Winston v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Winston v. Torres

73 A.D.3d 537, 900 N.Y.S.2d 309

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

DecidedMay 13, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.3d 537 (Winston v. Torres) 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

Winston v. Torres, 73 A.D.3d 537, 900 N.Y.S.2d 309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered April 9, 2009, dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge respondent’s determination, dated May 9, 2008, which, inter alia, upheld the rent established for petitioners’ apartment by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since HPD “set the initial rents for the subject apartment[ ] following renovations that were financed in part with a Private Housing Finance Law loan from HPD, respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal . . . was without authority to review petitioners’ challenges to those rents ... If petitioners wished to challenge the initial postrenovation rents set by HPD, . . . the proper course would have been to proceed . . . against HPD” (Matter of Ahmed v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Control, 15 AD3d 216 [2005]). The other relief sought by petitioners, such as a forensic accounting, was not requested before the agency and thus may not be requested from the courts (see CPLR 7803). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered April 9, 2009, dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge respondent’s determination, dated May 9, 2008, which, inter alia, upheld the rent established for petitioners’ apartment by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since HPD “set the initial rents for the subject apartment[ ] following renovations that were financed in part with a Private Housing Finance Law loan from HPD, respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal . . . was without authority to review petitioners’ challenges to those rents ... If petitioners wished to challenge the initial postrenovation rents set by HPD, . . . the proper course would have been to proceed . . . against HPD” (Matter of Ahmed v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Control, 15 AD3d 216 [2005]). The other relief sought by petitioners, such as a forensic accounting, was not requested before the agency and thus may not be requested from the courts (see CPLR 7803). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 537, 900 N.Y.S.2d 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winston-v-torres-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack