Gomez v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. and Cmty. Renewal

• Decision Date: 14 December 2010
• Citation: 912 N.Y.S.2d 444,79 A.D.3d 878
• Parties: In the Matter of Isabel GOMEZ, appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

912 N.Y.S.2d 444
79 A.D.3d 878

In the Matter of Isabel GOMEZ, appellant,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, respondent.

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

Dec. 14, 2010.

Martin S. Needelman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Joanne Koslofsky and Edward Josephson of counsel; William Spirer on the brief), for appellant.

Gary R. Connor, New York, N.Y. (Sheldon Melnitsky and Kathleen Lamar of counsel), for respondent.

79 A.D.3d 878

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated June 27, 2008, which denied a request for administrative review and confirmed a determination of the Rent Administrator dated April 2, 2008, finding that there was no overcharge of rent, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated March 20, 2009, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

"In reviewing a determination made by an administrative agency such as the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR), the court's inquiry is limited to whether the determination is arbitrary and capricious, or without a rational basis in the record and a reasonable

79 A.D.3d 879

basis in law" (

912 N.Y.S.2d 445

Matter of ATM One, LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 37 A.D.3d 714, 714, 831 N.Y.S.2d 436; see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of 508 Realty Assoc., LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 61 A.D.3d 753, 754-755, 877 N.Y.S.2d 392; Matter of Melendez v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 304 A.D.2d 580, 581, 756 N.Y.S.2d 891). The DHCR's interpretation of the statutes and regulations it administers is entitled to deference, and must be upheld if reasonable ( see Matter of ATM One, LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 37 A.D.3d at 714, 831 N.Y.S.2d 436; Matter of 85 E. Parkway Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 297 A.D.2d 675, 676, 747 N.Y.S.2d 115).

"A rent overcharge claim, whether made in a judicial or administrative forum, is subject to a four-year statute of limitations" ( Jenkins v. Fieldbridge Assoc., LLC, 65 A.D.3d 169, 172, 877 N.Y.S.2d 375; see CPLR 213-a; Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 26-516[a][2] ). "[T]he Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 (RRRA) (L. 1997, ch. 116) clarified and...