Opinion
8587 Index 157373/17
03-05-2019
In re J. MARTIN–GEINDO, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Collins, Dobkin & Miller LLP, New York (W. Miller Hall of counsel), for appellant. Mark F. Palomino, New York (Jason G. Parpas of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, respondent. Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., New York (Andrew I. Bart of counsel), for Heights HQ, LLC and Livingston Management, respondents.
Collins, Dobkin & Miller LLP, New York (W. Miller Hall of counsel), for appellant.
Mark F. Palomino, New York (Jason G. Parpas of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, respondent.
Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., New York (Andrew I. Bart of counsel), for Heights HQ, LLC and Livingston Management, respondents.
Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Gische, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered January 22, 2018, denying the petition to annul respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's determination, dated July 13, 2017, settling a non-compliance proceeding against respondents Heights HQ, LLC and Livingston Management, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner failed to establish that respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) exceeded its authority by entering into an agreement with respondents Heights HQ, LLC and Livingston Management settling a non-compliance proceeding initiated against them, or that DHCR's decision to enter into such an agreement either violated a lawful procedure or was arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Power v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 61 A.D.3d 544, 544, 878 N.Y.S.2d 682 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 716, 2010 WL 118239 [2010] ; Matter of Soho Alliance v. New York State Liq. Auth., 32 A.D.3d 363, 363, 821 N.Y.S.2d 31 [1st Dept. 2006] ; Matter of Town of Marilla v. Travis, 151 A.D.3d 1588, 1589–1590, 56 N.Y.S.3d 695 [4th Dept. 2017] ). DHCR's prior order, which required Heights HQ and Livingston to reinstate door-to-door trash collection in petitioner's building within thirty days, did not preclude Heights HQ or Livingston from filing an application for a reduction or modification of services pursuant to section 9 NYCRR 2522.4(e) of the Rent Stabilization Code. Accordingly, DHCR's subsequent settlement of an enforcement action against Heights HQ and Livingston, in which DHCR required them to file such an application within sixty days, did not constitute a revocation or modification of its prior order, and did not require notice to petitioner pursuant to section 9 NYCRR 2527.8 of the Rent Stabilization Code.