From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Mengoni v. Div. of Hous. Comm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 6, 1992
186 A.D.2d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 6, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.).


Petitioner's failure to provide, as requested by respondent, a complete rent history authorized respondent's use of its default formula in calculating the rent for the subject apartment (Matter of Drewbar Realty Co. v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 181 A.D.2d 617). Upon an examination of the return, we also agree with the IAS Court that petitioner's assertion that the building containing the subject apartment had been a church/school prior to 1974 was not raised during the administrative proceedings, and thus could not be considered in the article 78 proceeding. "Disposition of the proceeding is limited to the facts and record adduced before the agency when the administrative determination was rendered." (Matter of Fanelli v New York City Conciliation Appeals Bd., 90 A.D.2d 756, 757, affd 58 N.Y.2d 952.) We have reviewed petitioner's other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Mengoni v. Div. of Hous. Comm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 6, 1992
186 A.D.2d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Mengoni v. Div. of Hous. Comm

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of FRED MENGONI, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF HOUSING AND…

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

Date published: Oct 6, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
588 N.Y.S.2d 178

Citing Cases

Mtr. of 415 E. 71st St. v. State Div. of Hous.

In response, DHCR asserts that the registrations are merely self-serving statements that are insufficient to…

Marksue Realty v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Based upon the limited scope of Supreme Court review in an article 78 proceeding challenging a PAR…