Opinion
No. 4
02-15-2022
In the Matter of Robinson CALLEN, as Trustee of Casper R. Callen Trust, Care of Salon Realty Corporation,Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY LOFT BOARD, Appellant, and Richard Fiscina, et al., Respondents., In the Matter of Richard Fiscina, Respondent, v. New York City Loft Board, Appellant, and Robinson Callen, as Trustee of Casper R. Callen Trust et al., Respondents.
Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Diana Lawless, Scott Shorr and Richard Dearing of counsel), for appellant. Goodfarb & Sandercock, LLP, New York City (Margaret B. Sandercock and Elizabeth Sandercock of counsel), for Luke Weinstock and others, respondents. Belkin Burden Goldman, LLP, New York City (Magda L. Cruz, Sherwin Belkin and Joseph Burden of counsel), for Robinson Callen, respondent. Richard Fiscina, respondent pro se.
Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Diana Lawless, Scott Shorr and Richard Dearing of counsel), for appellant.
Goodfarb & Sandercock, LLP, New York City (Margaret B. Sandercock and Elizabeth Sandercock of counsel), for Luke Weinstock and others, respondents.
Belkin Burden Goldman, LLP, New York City (Magda L. Cruz, Sherwin Belkin and Joseph Burden of counsel), for Robinson Callen, respondent.
Richard Fiscina, respondent pro se.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM. In each proceeding, the order insofar as appealed from should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division with directions to remand to the New York City Loft Board for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum. In accordance with its regulations (see 29 RCNY § 1–06[j][5]), the Loft Board reviewed and rejected the parties' proposed settlement agreement as perpetuating an illegal living arrangement. The rationality of that determination is not before us (see 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v. Jennifer Realty Co., 98 N.Y.2d 144, 151 n. 3, 746 N.Y.S.2d 131, 773 N.E.2d 496 [2002] ). Under these limited circumstances, it was not irrational for the Board to remand for further proceedings, thereby declining to give effect to a provision of the settlement agreement in which tenants purported to withdraw their application for Loft Law coverage.
Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Wilson, Singas and Cannataro concur. Judge Troutman took no part. In each proceeding, order insofar as appealed from reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, with directions to remand to the New York City Loft Board for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.