Opinion
1947
October 22, 2002.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schulman, J.), entered on or about June 7, 2001, which denied petitioner tenant's application to annul respondent DHCR's denial of petitioner's rent overcharge complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
ANTHONY F. LECRICHIA, for petitioner-appellant.
MICHAEL B. ROSENBLATT, for respondent-respondent
Before: Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Marlow, JJ.
Judicial deference is due DHCR's finding that the signed contracts, invoices and canceled checks submitted by the landlord were sufficient to prove improvements justifying the vacancy rent increase charged to the tenant (see Matter of Linden v. DHCR, 217 A.D.2d 407; DHCR Policy Statement 90-10). The tenant's claim that the documents relied on misrepresented the nature and exaggerated the scope and costs of the improvements is supported only by his own statement, and otherwise is not sufficiently compelling to warrant a finding that DHCR's reliance on the landlord's documents, without undertaking an inspection of the apartment or other manner of further inquiry, was arbitrary and capricious(compare Matter of 201 E. 81st St. Assocs. v. DHCR, 288 A.D.2d 89; Matter of Merit Mgt. v. DHCR, 278 A.D.2d 178).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.