Opinion
0104395/2007.
August 14, 2007.
Decision and Order
Petitioners, the owners of various apartment buildings, file this Article 78 petition against New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR)seeking an order from the Court directing DHCR to process their pending "unique or peculiar" application within sixty days and to direct DHCR to determine that the rental units must have their monthly rents increased so that they conform to those of "substantially similar housing accommodations." Formerly, the owners (or their predecessors) participated in the government's Mitchell-Lama program under which each received low interest loans that were funded by the government, and many years of tax subsidies in exchange for renting apartments to tenants at affordable rates. The owners have now chosen to exit the Mitchell-Lama program and, pursuant to Rent Stabilization Law, the apartments in these buildings automatically become stabilized at the existing rents. Petitioners no longer enjoy government tax subsidies and wish to have the rents of the apartments located in six separate buildings in Bronx County, New York re-evaluated pursuant to DHCR's "unique and peculiar" exception. Petitioners state that the rents must be increased to what they believe are market rate rents for the subject locations. Petitioners state that, on information and belief, DHCR is refusing to process their applications. They now seek a writ of mandamus ordering DHCR to make their determinations within 60 days. Additionally, the owners petition the Court to direct DHCR to issue a determination in accordance with petitioner's view of the applicable law.
DHCR cross-moves for a change of venue to Bronx County and requests that the Court stay further proceedings pending determination of its change of venue motion. In the alternative, it opposes Petitioners' applications and asks for additional time to respond to the motion. By stipulation dated May 31, 2007, Petitioners and DHCR agreed with the Intervenor-Respondents that the Tenants' Associations (Tenants) should be permitted to intervene in this matter. Tenants oppose Petitioner's application and join in DHCR's application for change of venue to Bronx County.
Although not formally moving pursuant to CPLR § 602, Petitioners argue against change of venue stating that this matter should be consolidated with two other matters now pending before this Court.(One involves a Kings County apartment building, index # 104396, the other involves four New York County apartment buildings, index # 104007/07). Petitioners argue that the three actions are "highly related" and "as a way to minimize confusion with respect to the various buildings . . . it was decided that all three proceedings be brought in New York County Supreme Court." Petitioners further assert that as counsel for Petitioners in all three proceedings, the matters will concern identical legal arguments and "to avoid the risk of conflicting decisions by different courts," the matters should be "consolidated."
Lastly, they state that DHCR is not prejudiced if all three matters are heard here because the DHCR attorneys have their offices in New York County.
DHCR argues that the issues in these various proceedings are not similar because these buildings are not similarly situated and it is not the location of any of its many offices which controls the venue of this action. It argues that Rent Stabilization Law § 26-516(d) states:
[a]ny action or proceeding brought by or against the commissioner under this law shall be brought in the county in which the housing accommodation is located.
Additionally, the Rent Stabilization Code § 2530.01 states that a
petition for judicial review shall be brought in the Supreme Court in the county in which the subject housing accommodation is located.
DHCR notes that it is at the direction of the State Legislature that local courts have the authority to adjudicate the regulation of rent stabilized properties in their jurisdiction and these directives should not be disturbed.
DHCR has timely complied with the procedures mandated by CPLR § 511 for change of venue. It has also demonstrated that Rent Stabilization Law requires matters involving Bronx County housing to be litigated in Bronx County. Wherefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that the petition is respectfully referred to a Justice of the Supreme Court in Bronx County; and it is further
ORDERED that the venue of this action is changed from this Court to the Supreme Court, County of the Bronx, and the Clerk of this Court is directed to transfer the papers on file in this action to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, County of the Bronx upon service of a copy of this order with notice of entry and payment of appropriate fees, if any.
All other relief requested is denied.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court