NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
December 30, 2008
IN RE WILLIAM A. CONNORS, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
THE NEW YORK CITY LOFT BOARD, RESPONDENT.
Determinations of respondent New York City Loft Board, dated January 19 and July 20, 2006, which (1) adopted, with minor modifications, the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge denying all but one of petitioners' numerous allegations of unreasonable interference by the owner with petitioners' use of their apartment (29 RCNY 2-01[h]), denying petitioners' claim of an intent on the part of the owner to harass (29 RCNY 2-02[b]), and declining to impose civil penalties against the owner, and (2) accepted the report and recommendation of respondent's Executive Director denying petitioners' application for reconsideration, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Eileen A. Rakower, J.], entered October 12, 2007), dismissed, without costs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, McGuire, Acosta, JJ.
Respondent's findings are supported by substantial evidence (see Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-231 ). Indeed, rather than showing unreasonable interference by the owner, the record shows that petitioners sought at every juncture to obstruct and delay the legalization work that the owner had undertaken (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 284; 29 RCNY 2-01). No basis exists to disturb respondent's decision not to impose a fine for the single sustained allegation of unreasonable interference (cf. 29 RCNY 2-01[h]), which the ALJ described as a "relatively minor" matter that the owner was willing to correct, or the ALJ's findings of credibility. We have considered petitioners' other arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.