M.M. v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

• Decision Date: 17 November 2021
• Docket Number: Index No. 518975/17,2018-05423
• Citation: 2021 NY Slip Op 06355
• Court: New York Supreme Court
• Parties: In the Matter of M.M. & I. Realty Co., LLC, appellant, v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, respondent-respondent; 35 Orange Street Tenants' Association, intervenor respondent-respondent. Index No. 518975/17

2021 NY Slip Op 06355

In the Matter of M.M. & I. Realty Co., LLC, appellant,
v.
New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, respondent-respondent;

35 Orange Street Tenants' Association, intervenor respondent-respondent.

Index No. 518975/17

No. 2018-05423

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

November 17, 2021

Argued - October 1, 2021

D67641 Y/htr

Cornicello, Tendler & Baumel-Cornicello, LLP, New York, NY (Susan Baumel-Cornicello and Jay H. Berg of counsel), for appellant.

Mark F. Palomino, New York, NY (Dawn Ivy Schindelman of counsel), for respondent-respondent.

David E. Frazer, New York, NY, for intervenor respondent-respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. LEONARD B. AUSTIN COLLEEN D. DUFFY FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

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 August 3, 2017, which affirmed a determination of a Rent Administrator dated July 16, 2012, denying the petitioner's application for another major capital improvement rent increase related to pointing, waterproofing, and related facade work, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Peter P. Sweeney, J.), dated April 4, 2018. The judgment denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

As is relevant to this appeal, in July 2012, a Rent Administrator of the New York

1

State Department of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter DHCR) issued an order denying in part an application by the petitioner, the owner of a rent-stabilized apartment building in Brooklyn (hereinafter the premises), for a rent increase following the completion of major capital improvements to the premises. The petitioner contended that the major capital improvements, which began in 2007, involved pointing, waterproofing, related facade work to the premises, and the installation of a new intercom system. The Rent Administrator concluded that, since a prior rent increase had been granted for prior work performed on the building within the 15-year useful life period of the prior work and the petitioner did not seek a waiver of the useful life requirement before the work commenced, another major capital improvement rent increase, other than for the installation of the new intercom system, was not warranted.

Thereafter, the...