Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Friedman v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


March 24, 2009

IN RE KENNETH FRIEDMAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered March 31, 2008, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated October 25, 2007, denying petitioner landlord's petition for administrative review of a Rent Administrator's order which determined that petitioner failed to timely offer respondent tenant a renewal lease, directed that petitioner offer an amended renewal lease commencing July 1, 2006 and based the rent on the 2006 rent guidelines (Rent Guidelines Board Order # 37), unanimously affirmed, 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.

Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.

114769/07

There exists no basis to disturb DHCR's credibility-based finding that petitioner failed to establish that his predecessor timely tendered a renewal lease to the tenant in 2005, or that the tenant had not made a conscious decision about the commencement date of the untimely renewal offered (see e.g. Matter of 201 E. 81st St. Assoc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 288 AD2d 89 [2001]). Accordingly, since the lease was not renewed until April 1, 2006, the determination to direct petitioner to issue an amended renewal commencing July 1, 2006 and to apply the 2006 guideline rent increases to that lease was rationally based (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2523.5[c][1]; § 2522.7).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20090324

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.