113-117 Realty, LLC v. Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

• Decision Date: 18 November 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 2021-01244,14650,Index No. 150738/20
• Citation: 199 A.D.3d 506,154 N.Y.S.3d 428 (Mem)
• Parties: In the Matter of 113-117 REALTY, LLC, Petitioner–Appellant, v. DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent–Respondent, Nancy Williams, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

199 A.D.3d 506

154 N.Y.S.3d 428 (Mem)

In the Matter of 113-117 REALTY, LLC, Petitioner–Appellant,

v. DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent–Respondent, Nancy Williams, Respondent.

14650

Index No. 150738/20

Case No. 2021-01244

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED November 18, 2021

Golino Law Group, PLLC, New York (Santo Golino of counsel), for appellant.

Mark F. Palomino, New York (Martin B. Schneider of counsel), for respondent.

Kapnick, J.P., Webber, Oing, Moulton, Rodriguez, JJ.

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 14, 2020, denying the petition seeking to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated November 22, 2019, which denied petitioner's application to vacate the rent administrator's reduction of the rent collectable from a rent-stabilized tenant, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

DHCR's determination that a rent reduction is warranted was rationally based and supported by the record (see CPLR 7803[3] ). DHCR's on-site inspection revealed that 20 required services were not maintained in the apartment of petitioner's tenant. DHCR has broad discretion in ascertaining whether a required service is not being properly provided (see Matter of Melohn v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 234 A.D.2d 23, 650 N.Y.S.2d 166 [1st Dept. 1996] ). "In making such a determination, the DHCR is entitled to rely upon the reports of its inspectors" ( Matter of Sherman v. Commissioner, N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 210 A.D.2d 486, 487, 620 N.Y.S.2d 474 [2d Dept. 1994] ).

Petitioner's argument that DHCR failed to adhere to its own precedent on the basis that it failed to stay the proceeding pending the outcome of a nuisance holdover proceeding is unpreserved (see Matter of Rizzo v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 16 A.D.3d 72, 75, 789 N.Y.S.2d 139 [1st Dept. 2005], affd 6 N.Y.3d 104, 810 N.Y.S.2d 112, 843 N.E.2d 739 [2005] ) and, in any event, without merit.

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