9215 Realty, LLC v. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

• Decision Date: 17 February 2016
• Citation: 25 N.Y.S.3d 335,136 A.D.3d 925
• Parties: In the Matter of 9215 REALTY, LLC, appellant, v. STATE of New York DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

136 A.D.3d 925
25 N.Y.S.3d 335

In the Matter of 9215 REALTY, LLC, appellant,
v.
STATE of New York DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, et al., respondents.

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

Feb. 17, 2016.

25 N.Y.S.3d 336

Tenenbaum Berger & Shivers LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (David M. Berger and Damien Bernache of counsel), for appellant.

Gary R. Connor, New York, N.Y. (Aida P. Reyes of counsel), for respondent State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Emily Ruben and Mimi Rosenberg of counsel), for respondent Nikia Williams.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, ROBERT J. MILLER, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

136 A.D.3d 925

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated January 29, 2013, which denied a petition for administrative review and affirmed a Rent Administrator's finding that Nikia Williams was entitled to succession rights to a rent-stabilized apartment, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated February 6, 2014, which denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

"Judicial review of administrative determinations that were not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" (Matter of Riverside Tenants Assn. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 133 A.D.3d 764, 766, 19 N.Y.S.3d 589, citing CPLR 7803[3] ; see Matter of Murphy v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 21 N.Y.3d 649, 652, 977 N.Y.S.2d 161, 999 N.E.2d 524 ; Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384, 633 N.Y.S.2d 259, 657 N.E.2d 254 ; Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d 768, 771, 809 N.Y.S.2d...