Opinion
2014-04-30
In the Matter of 25–50 FLB, LLC, appellant, v. MEENAKSHI SRINIVASAN, etc., et al., respondents.
Rothkrug Rothkrug & Spector, LLP, Great Neck, N.Y. (Simon H. Rothkrug of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo, Susan Paulson, and Virginia Waters of counsel), for respondents.
Rothkrug Rothkrug & Spector, LLP, Great Neck, N.Y. (Simon H. Rothkrug of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo, Susan Paulson, and Virginia Waters of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, JEFFREY A. COHEN and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York dated January 11, 2011, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's appeal from a determination of the Department of Buildings of the City of New York revoking its alteration permit, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey,J.), entered July 12, 2012, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York (hereinafter the BSA) may not be set aside in the absence of illegality, arbitrariness, or abuse of discretion ( see Matter of Ward v. Bennett, 79 N.Y.2d 394, 583 N.Y.S.2d 179, 592 N.E.2d 787;Matter of Mainstreet Makeover 2, Inc. v. Srinivasan, 55 A.D.3d 910, 866 N.Y.S.2d 706;CPLR 7803[3] ). “In applying the ‘arbitrary and capricious' standard, a court inquires whether the determination under review had a rational basis” (Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d 768, 770, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98;cf.CPLR 7803[4] ).
According proper deference to the interpretation given to former section 27–149 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York by the Department of Buildings of the City of New York (hereinafter DOB) ( see Matter of Fineway Supermarkets v. State Liq. Auth., 48 N.Y.2d 464, 423 N.Y.S.2d 649, 399 N.E.2d 536;Arbuiso v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 64 A.D.3d 520, 883 N.Y.S.2d 216;cf. Matter of Raritan Dev. Corp. v. Silva, 91 N.Y.2d 98, 102–103, 667 N.Y.S.2d 327, 689 N.E.2d 1373;Matter of Toys “R” Us v. Silva, 89 N.Y.2d 411, 654 N.Y.S.2d 100, 676 N.E.2d 862), the subsequent determination of the BSA in upholding the determination of the Commissioner of the DOB revoking the petitioner's alteration permit had a sound legal basis ( see Matter of Parkview Assoc. v. City of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 274, 525 N.Y.S.2d 176, 519 N.E.2d 1372,cert. denied488 U.S. 801, 109 S.Ct. 30, 102 L.Ed.2d 9;Matter of Natchev v. Klein, 41 N.Y.2d 833, 393 N.Y.S.2d 395, 361 N.E.2d 1043;Matter of Mainstreet Makeover 2, Inc. v. Srinivasan, 95 A.D.3d 1331, 944 N.Y.S.2d 887; Administrative Code of City of N.Y. former § 27–197).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.