47-40 41st Realty Corp. v. New York State Div. of Housing and Community Renewal

• Decision Date: 04 March 1996
• Parties: In the Matter of 47-40 41ST REALTY CORP., Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 755

638 N.Y.S.2d 755

225 A.D.2d 547

In the Matter of 47-40 41ST REALTY CORP., Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

March 4, 1996.

Horing Welikson & Bienstock, P.C., Forest Hills (Niles C. Welikson, of counsel), for appellant.

Leslie R. Byrd, Bronx (Jan C. Rose, of counsel), for respondent.

Before BALLETTA, J.P., and JOY, KRAUSMAN and FLORIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review two determinations of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated September 7, 1993, and October 19, 1993, respectively, upholding the findings of the District Rent Administrator (1) that the tenant is entitled to a refund of rent due to the petitioner's failure to maintain essential services and (2) that a refund of $7,870.86, including treble damages, be paid to the tenant, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.) dated May 25, 1994, which dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that, when reviewing a determination of an administrative agency, the court's inquiry is limited to whether the determination is arbitrary or capricious or without a rational basis in the record and a reasonable basis in law (Matter of Ista Mgt. v. State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 161 A.D.2d 424, 426, 555 N.Y.S.2d 724; Matter of Drizin v. Commissioner of Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 140 A.D.2d 605, 606, 528 N.Y.S.2d 864; Matter of Plaza Mgt. Co. v. City Rent Agency, 48 A.D.2d 129, 131, 368 N.Y.S.2d 178, affd. 37 N.Y.2d 837, 378 N.Y.S.2d 33, 340 N.E.2d 468). The court should refrain from substituting its judgment for that of the administrative agency (Fresh Meadows Assocs. v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 88 Misc.2d 1003, 390 N.Y.S.2d 351, affd. 55 A.D.2d 559, 390 N.Y.S.2d 69, affd. 42 N.Y.2d 925, 397 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 366 N.E.2d 1361). Furthermore, an administrative agency's interpretation of the statutes and regulations that it administers, if reasonable, must be upheld (Matter of Seales v. Mirabal, 152 A.D.2d 672, 674, 543 N.Y.S.2d 738).

We agree with the Supreme Court that the determinations of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter DHCR) have a reasonable basis in law, a rational basis in the record and are neither arbitrary nor capricious. The petitioner's reliance upon a September 1989 stipulation which discontinued a holdover...