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.

In Re Bluestar Properties Inc., Petitioner-Appellant v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


January 12, 2012

IN RE BLUESTAR PROPERTIES INC., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Matter of Matter of Bluestar Props. Inc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal

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.

Decided on January 12, 2012

Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Freedman, Roman, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered May 31, 2011, denying the petition, which sought to annul respondent's determination that a building-wide rent reduction was warranted on the ground of a reduction in services, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent, as "[t]he administrative agency charged with enforcing a statutory mandate[,] has broad discretion in evaluating pertinent factual data and inferences to be drawn therefrom, and its interpretation will be upheld so long as not irrational or unreasonable" (Matter of 333 E. 49th Assoc., LP v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 40 AD3d 516, 516 [2007], affd 9 NY3d 982 [2007]). Here, the prior owner of the subject premises, in answering the service complaint, acknowledged that access to the community room was a required service that was provided to the tenants in the past and represented to respondent that this service would continue to be available to the tenants. Since the prior owner did not dispute that providing access to the community room to the building's tenants was a required service, respondent's determination that Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2523.4(f)(1) was inapplicable had a rational basis in the record.

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.

ENTERED: JANUARY 12, 2012

CLERK

20120112

© 1992-2012 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.