In the Matter of the Application of ALICIA ECHEVARRIA Petitioner,
MATTHEW M. WAMBUA, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEP'T OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT; EAST MIDTOWN PLAZA HOUSING CO.; MARK ANDERMANIS and SANDRA ANDERMANIS, Respondents For a Judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, Index No. 102688/12
Peter H. Moulton, Justice.
The following papers, numbered 1 to____, were read on this motion to/for_____.
Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause — Affidavits — Exhibits No(s).______.
Answering Affidavits — Exhibits________No(s).
Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is
Respondent East Midtown Plaza Housing Company moves to reargue this court's decision dated April 22, 2013 ("April 22nd decision").
Petitioner Alicia Echevarria and respondents Mark and Sandra Andermanis are shareholders in a Mitchell-Lama cooperative complex located in Manhattan. Echevarria brought this Article 78 proceeding to annul the assignment of a four bedroom apartment to the Andermanises by respondents East Midtown Plaza Housing Company ("East Midtown") and the City's Department of Housing Preservation and Development ("HPD") . Petitioner sought the eviction of the Andermanis family from the apartment and the implementation of a process to ensure that the apartment be awarded according to HPD's rules governing internal apartment transfers within a single Mitchell Lama development.
HPD cross-moved for a remand to the agency so that it could rescind the determination challenged herein, i.e. the assignment of the apartment to the Andermanises and proceed to assign the apartment in accordance with its own rules.
East Midtown moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Echevarria did not have standing because she would not have gotten the apartment even had the Andermanises not been assigned the apartment. This motion was joined by the Andermanises.
In the April 22nd decision, familiarity with which is assumed, this court granted the petition to the extent of remanding the matter to HPD.
In the instant motion East Midtown first argues that the court erred in finding that petitioner had standing to bring this action. East Midtown simply repeats its prior argument, and makes no attempt to grapple with the authority cited by the court that demonstrates ...