MATTER OF MELENDEZ v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
| Decision Date | 07 April 2003 |
| Citation | 756 N.Y.S.2d 891,304 A.D.2d 580 |
| Parties | In the Matter of INEZ MELENDEZ, Petitioner,<BR>v.<BR>NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.)<BR>In the Matter of YEN BACK VU, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The court's inquiry in this case is limited to whether the determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) was arbitrary or capricious, without a rational basis in the record and without a reasonable basis in the law (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Heintz v Brown, 80 NY2d 998, 1001 [1992]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-231 [1974]; Matter of 47-40 41st Realty Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 225 AD2d 547 [1996]). Based on a reasonable interpretation of the Rent Stabilization Code (see 9 NYCRR 2520.1 et seq.) the DHCR found that the subject apartment was not exempt from the code during the period under review on the ground that the tenant was charged a preferential rent (see 9 NYCRR 2520.11 [m]). The DHCR further found that since there was no written agreement between the parties, pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2521.2, the preferential rent, subject to adjustments, "shall remain in effect until such tenant vacates." The DHCR's interpretation of the regulations administered by it is entitled to deference. Under the circumstances of this case, its determination should be upheld (see Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784 [1988]).
The landlord's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal
...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 interpretation by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinaf......
-
Gomez v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. and Cmty. Renewal
...& 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 uphel......
-
Ippolito v. Uriarte
...in denying the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's order dated December 14, 2011 ( see id.;Matter of Madura v. Nass, 304 A.D.2d at 580, 756 N.Y.S.2d 890).SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and SGROI, JJ., ...
-
Gavin v. Worner
...44 A.D.3d at 775, 843 N.Y.S.2d 407; Matter of McCarthy v. McCarthy, 2 A.D.3d at 735, 769 N.Y.S.2d 590; Matter of Madura v. Nass, 304 A.D.2d at 580, 756 N.Y.S.2d 890). The credibility determinations of the hearing court are entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if supp......