MATTER OF BLEECKER STREET MANAGEMENT CO. v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL

• Decision Date: 12 June 2001
• Citation: 284 A.D.2d 174,727 N.Y.S.2d 76
• Parties: In the Matter of BLEECKER STREET MANAGEMENT CO., Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

284 A.D.2d 174
727 N.Y.S.2d 76

In the Matter of BLEECKER STREET MANAGEMENT CO., Appellant,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent.

Decided June 12, 2001.

[284 A.D.2d 175]

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

At issue is whether Real Property Tax Law § 489 (7) (b) (2), as amended by chapter 289 (§ 2) of the Laws of 1985, applies to rent controlled units. Pursuant to RPTL 489 (1) (a), authorizing local governments to adopt local laws implementing a real estate tax exemption/abatement program, the City of New York enacted Administrative Code of the City of New York § J51-2.5 (now § 11-243). The statutory scheme originally provided that multiple dwellings receiving tax exemption/abatement benefits were to be subject to rent control for the period during which benefits were received but would cease being rent controlled upon termination of the benefits. The 1985 amendment in issue provides for the continuation of "rent regulation" until the first vacancy after the expiration of the benefits with respect to dwellings subject to such regulation on or before the effective date of the amendment, June 19, 1985.

Petitioner argues that because RPTL 489 is an enabling statute, and because the New York City Council has never enacted legislation adopting the 1985 amendments, DHCR lacks authority to apply the amendments. Although this claim is made for the first time on appeal, we nevertheless consider it as it involves solely a question of statutory interpretation (see, Matter of Richardson v Fiedler Roofing, 67 NY2d 246, 250). We conclude that the City has adopted the 1985 amendments by virtue of later City Council Resolutions renewing the rent control laws subject to any amendments that may have been enacted into law (see, e.g., NY City Council Resolution No. 1237 of 1988; Resolution No. 1122 of 2000). This conclusion is supported by the fact that the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), the City agency charged with administering the J-51 program, has promulgated regulations implementing the 1985 amendments (see, 28 RCNY 5-03 [f] [3] [i] [A]). Contrary provisions of the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations in 9 NYCRR 2200.2 (e) (3) were effectively invalidated by chapter 289 of the Laws of 1985, and therefore could be disregarded by DHCR.

DHCR's conclusion that petitioner's apartments, which were subject to rent control on June 19, 1985, remain...