Opinion
2013-06-26
In the Matter of Yuriy RABINOVICH, et al., petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION & DEVELOPMENT OF CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents.
Wenig Saltiel LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Meryl L. Wenig and Iris Roberts of counsel), for petitioners. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner, Jasmine M. Georges, and Edward F.X. Hart of counsel), for respondent Commissioner of Department of Housing Preservation & Development of City of New York.
Wenig Saltiel LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Meryl L. Wenig and Iris Roberts of counsel), for petitioners. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner, Jasmine M. Georges, and Edward F.X. Hart of counsel), for respondent Commissioner of Department of Housing Preservation & Development of City of New York.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey R. Metz and Joanna C. Peck of counsel), for respondent Luna Park Housing Corporation.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development dated May 17, 2011, which, after a hearing, granted the application of the respondent Luna Park Housing Corporation for a certificate authorizing it to commence a proceeding to evict the petitioners from the subject apartment.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed, on the merits, with one bill of costs to the respondents.
“To annul an administrative determination made after a hearing directed by law at which evidence is taken, a court must conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination” (Matter of Mannino v. Department of Motor Vehs. of State of N.Y.—Traffic Violations Div., 101 A.D.3d 880, 880, 956 N.Y.S.2d 120;see Matter of Kelly v. Safir, 96 N.Y.2d 32, 38, 724 N.Y.S.2d 680, 747 N.E.2d 1280;Matter of Morales v. Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 83 A.D.3d 1075, 923 N.Y.S.2d 563). Here, there was substantial evidence at the hearing to support the determination of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development that the petitioners were not entitled to succession rights to the subject Mitchell–Lama apartment owned by Luna Park Housing Corporation and, therefore, that Luna Park Housing Corporation was entitled to a certificate authorizing it to commence a proceeding to evict the petitioners from the apartment ( see 28 RCNY 3–02[n] [4]; [p][3]; Belok v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 89 A.D.3d 579, 580, 933 N.Y.S.2d 241;Matter of Miney v. Donovan, 68 A.D.3d 876, 877–878, 890 N.Y.S.2d 616;Matter of Hochhauser v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 48 A.D.3d 288, 289, 853 N.Y.S.2d 22; Matter of Kaufman v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 45 A.D.3d 257, 258, 845 N.Y.S.2d 243;Matter of Weinstein v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 39 A.D.3d 764, 832 N.Y.S.2d 443;Matter of Estate of Vaisman v. East Midtown Plaza Hous. Co., 15 A.D.3d 290, 789 N.Y.S.2d 426).