From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Clarendon v. State Division of Housing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 2000
271 A.D.2d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted March 6, 2000.

April 24, 2000.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated March 18, 1998, which denied the appellant's petition for administrative review and affirmed an order of the Rent Administrator, dated March 5, 1997, sustaining an Order Reducing Rent for Rent-Stabilized Tenants dated February 13, 1996, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated December 21, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler Schwartz, P.C., New York, N Y (William J. Eberight of counsel), for appellant.

Marcia P. Hirsch, New York, N.Y. (Nava Listokin of counsel), for respondent.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the appellant's contention that two gaps in the brick wall around the entrance to the subject rent-regulated apartment building, which are six square feet and five square feet, respectively, were de minimis conditions and therefore provided no rational basis for the determination by the respondent, New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR). The appellant was required to repair and maintain the public areas of the subject building, and failed to do so. It is for the DHCR to determine what constitutes a required service and whether that service has been maintained, and its determination here is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Kingswood Mgt. Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 168 A.D.2d 450 ; Matter of Rubin v. Eimicke, 150 A.D.2d 697 ). In addition, there is no merit to the appellant's contention that the rent reduction was excessive (see, Matter of Hyde Park Assocs. v. Higgins, 191 A.D.2d 440 ).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

In re Clarendon v. State Division of Housing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 2000
271 A.D.2d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

In re Clarendon v. State Division of Housing

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Clarendon Management Corp., appellant, v. New York State…

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

Date published: Apr 24, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
707 N.Y.S.2d 873