From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of 24 Fifth Ave. v. N.Y. St. Division

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 18, 1993
191 A.D.2d 331 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

March 18, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.).


A rational basis exists for respondent's determination deeming 15 additional tenants as eligible for rent rollback benefits. These tenants, through counsel, had on August 4, 1981 unsuccessfully attempted to file complaints relating to petitioner's failure to provide customary hotel services. The unrebutted evidence at the hearing showed that the then Commissioner of the Conciliation and Appeals Board refused to process these additional complaints against petitioner in the belief that any rent rollbacks granted on the pending complaints would be applied building-wide. The Court of Appeals has determined that rent rollbacks and refunds were only authorized for individual complainants (Matter of 24 Fifth Ave. Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 69 N.Y.2d 808). Since these complaining tenants were wrongfully denied the opportunity to have their individual claims heard in 1981, respondent appropriately extended its order to encompass their claims.

Nor should that portion of respondent's order allowing rent stabilization increases only for renewal leases that were actually executed be disturbed. Under Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2523.5 (a), an owner is required to offer a lease renewal at the legally regulated rent within the 150-to-120-day window period, prior to the expiration of lease, and a tenant is not obligated to execute a lease renewal at an unlawful rent. Where the landlord fails to comply, the courts have repeatedly upheld respondent's determination allowing the renewal lease increase to take effect only prospectively (Matter of Sommer v New York City Conciliation Appeals Bd., 116 A.D.2d 457, 459; Matter of Wellington Estates v. New York City Conciliation Appeals Bd., 108 A.D.2d 685, affd 65 N.Y.2d 918). Accordingly, because of its non-compliance with the 1984 Conciliation and Appeals Board order fixing the rent, petitioner is not entitled to recover increases for those renewal leases never executed by the tenants.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of 24 Fifth Ave. v. N.Y. St. Division

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 18, 1993
191 A.D.2d 331 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of 24 Fifth Ave. v. N.Y. St. Division

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of 24 FIFTH AVENUE ASSOCIATES, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 18, 1993

Citations

191 A.D.2d 331 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
595 N.Y.S.2d 50

Citing Cases

Matter of Snowmass Realty Corp. v. State

Similarly, petitioner may not make submissions and raise arguments in this Article 78 proceeding that were…

MATTER OF 24 FIFTH AVE. ASSOCS. v. NEW YORK STATE DIV

Decided July 6, 1993 Appeal from (1st Dept: 191 A.D.2d 331) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR…