Pledge v. New York State Div. of Housing and Community Renewal
Decision Date | 07 January 1999 |
Citation | 683 N.Y.S.2d 76 |
Parties | 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 9 Ronald PLEDGE, et al., Petitioners-Respondents, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent-Respondent-Appellant, and Langham Mansions Co., Intervenor-Respondent-Appellant-Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mitchell P. Heaney, for Petitioners-Respondents.
Roderick J. Walters, for Respondent-Respondent-Appellant.
Robert D. Goldstein, for Intervenor-Respondent-Appellant-Respondent.
ROSENBERGER, J.P., WALLACH, RUBIN, SAXE, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered May 15, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted petitioners' motion for reargument and, upon reargument, granted their petition pursuant to CPLR article 78, vacated the determination of appellant Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) denying their Petition for Administrative Review, directed DHCR to verify petitioners' income for the years 1992 and 1993, and vacated an award of summary judgment to respondent landlord on its counterclaims for ejectment and use and occupancy, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the determination of respondent agency reinstated and respondent landlord granted summary judgment on its counterclaims for ejectment and use and occupancy. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 7, 1997, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order entered May 15, 1998.
Respondent landlord is the owner of an apartment building located at 135 Central Park West in the City and County of New York. Petitioner Robert Pledge is the tenant of record of apartment 10NC pursuant to a rent stabilized lease. Petitioner Ronald Pledge is Robert's son. In early 1994, the landlord demanded that petitioners certify on an income certification form that their "household income", as defined in § 26-504.3 of the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (Administrative Code of City of N.Y., tit. 26, ch. 4), did not exceed $250,000 for the years 1992 and 1993 (Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1993 [L.1993, ch. 253, § 6] ). There was no response to the landlord's demand for income certification.
In June 1994, the landlord petitioned DHCR for deregulation of the subject apartment based upon the failure to respond to its income certification demand. On or about August 4, 1994, DHCR mailed a copy of the 1994 deregulation petition and a form to answer the petition ("Answer to Petition and Notice to Tenant to Provide Information for Verification of Household Income"), containing the warning that failure to answer within 60 days would result in an order of deregulation. Again, there was no response and, on January 31, 1995, the Rent Administrator issued an order deregulating the premises, effective with the expiration of the existing lease on September 30, 1995.
In early March, Robert Pledge and his son filed a timely petition for administrative review (PAR) of the deregulation order. The petition asserts, in material part, that the income received by the occupants did not exceed $250,000 in either 1992 or 1993 and that Robert Pledge was in France "almost the entire time from April 6, 1994 to October 11, 1994." The landlord took the position that there had been a default on the part of petitioners for which they had advanced no valid excuse. The administrative proceeding culminated in a determination dated August 15, 1996, which denied the petition on the ground that the proffered excuse was insufficient to justify the tenant's default. Therefore the agency did not verify the household income for the years in question.
Meanwhile, at some time during 1995, the landlord brought a second deregulation petition based upon household income for the years 1993 and 1994. This petition resulted in a determination that household income for persons residing at the premises, as indicated by tax returns on file with the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, did not exceed $250,000 for one or both of the subject years.
In October 1996, the underlying article 78 proceeding was commenced seeking to annul the August 15, 1996 decision and to remand the matter to DHCR for further proceedings. In a decision dated June 26, 1997, Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground that there was a rational basis for the agency's determination. On a motion to renew, denominated a motion to renew and reargue, Robert Pledge and his son noted that the landlord's 1995 petition had resulted in a finding that their household income for 1993 and 1994 was below the statutory threshold for deregulation. Petitioners further asserted that the landlord possessed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sudarsky v. New York State Div. of Housing and Community Renewal
...Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 250 A.D.2d 403, 673 N.Y.S.2d 7). As we stated recently in Pledge v. New York State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal, --- A.D.2d ----, 683 N.Y.S.2d 76, the statutory requirement of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 26-504.3[c][1], [3] is "mandatory and explicit". We ......
-
Futterman v. New York State Div. of Housing and Community Renewal
...timely respond to a request for verification of income may result in an order of deregulation (Pledge v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, A.D.2d, 257 A.D.2d 391, 683 N.Y.S.2d 76, app. dismissed 93 N.Y.2d 888, 689 N.Y.S.2d 430, 711 N.E.2d 644; Matter of Bazbaz v. State of N.......
-
Shapiro v. New York State Div. of Housing and Community Renewal
...v. State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, --- A.D.2d ----, 685 N.Y.S.2d 704; Pledge v. State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, --- A.D.2d ----, 683 N.Y.S.2d 76, appeal dismissed 93 N.Y.2d 888, 689 N.Y.S.2d 430, 711 N.E.2d 644; Bazbaz v. State of New York Div. of H......
-
Lenox Hill Apartments Inc. v. N.Y.S. Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal
...Hous. & Community Renewal, 2 N.Y.3d 142, 146, 777 N.Y.S.2d 1, 808 N.E.2d 1260 [2004] ; Pledge v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 257 A.D.2d 391, 394, 683 N.Y.S.2d 76 [1st Dept. 1999], affd 94 N.Y.2d 851, 704 N.Y.S.2d 530, 725 N.E.2d 1092 [1999] ). It failed to do so, and, ......