Salvati v. Eimicke

• Decision Date: 20 December 1988
• Parties: , 533 N.E.2d 1045 In the Matter of Linda SALVATI et al., Appellants, v. William B. EIMICKE, as Commissioner of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration, State of New York, Respondent, Barbara Mattura et al., Intervenors-Respondents. In the Matter of Michael HELLER et al., Appellants, v. Manuel MIRABAL, Individually and as Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 16

537 N.Y.S.2d 16

72 N.Y.2d 784, 533 N.E.2d 1045

In the Matter of Linda SALVATI et al., Appellants, v. William B. EIMICKE, as Commissioner of the Division of

Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent

Administration, State of New York, Respondent,

Barbara Mattura et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

In the Matter of Michael HELLER et al., Appellants, v. Manuel MIRABAL, Individually and as Deputy Commissioner of

the New York State Division of Housing and

Community Renewal, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 20, 1988.

John C. Schnaufer, Long Island City, for appellants in the first above-entitled proceeding.

Lawrence Alexander and Dennis B. Hasher, for respondent in the first above-entitled proceeding.

Thomas P. Kerrigan, Brooklyn, for intervenors-respondents in the first above-entitled proceeding.

Harris L. Present, New York City, for appellants in the second above-entitled proceeding.

Lawrence Alexander, Dennis B. Hasher and Jan C. Rose, for Manuel Mirabal and another, respondents in the second above-entitled proceeding.

Alan D. Kucker, New York City, Patrick K. Munson and Hal D. Weiner, for Gansevoort Holding Corp., respondent in the second above-entitled proceeding.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The common issue presented on these appeals is whether horizontal multiple dwellings other than "garden-type maisonette complexes" located in the City of New York may properly be held to be subject to rent regulation as class A multiple dwellings containing six or more units pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of New York §§ 26-504, 26-505) and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L.1974, ch. 576, § 4; McKinney's Uncons. Laws of N.Y. § 8621 et seq.).

Petitioners in Matter of Salvati are three sisters who own two adjoining buildings located at 184 and 186 Sixth Avenue. Respondent Division of Housing and Communi Renewal (DHCR) determined that the buildings were subject to rent regulation as a horizontal multiple dwelling because they contained a total of more than six units and were serviced by a common boiler. Supreme Court vacated and annulled the agency's determination, concluding that in order for the buildings to be considered a horizontal multiple dwelling, they must "first be found to include structures which are * * * garden-type maisonette dwelling complexes". Supreme Court also found that DHCR's determination was not supported by substantial evidence because the record contained no evidence of any common facilities other than the boiler adapted for use by the two buildings. The Appellate Division reversed on the law and reinstated the agency's determination (135 A.D.2d 424, 522 N.Y.S.2d 138). Relying on its decision in Matter of Bambeck v. State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 129 A.D.2d 51, 517 N.Y.S.2d 130, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 615, 524 N.Y.S.2d 676, 519 N.E.2d 622, but making no reference to Supreme Court's conclusion that the record was otherwise devoid of substantial evidence, the Appellate Division held that the inclusive rather than exclusive language of the Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code § 26-505) supported the agency's view that the statute was not limited to horizontal multiple dwellings constituting garden-type maisonette complexes.

In Matter of Heller, petitioners are tenants in three adjoining buildings under a common ownership. DHCR, relying upon Supreme Court's ruling in Matter of Salvati, determined that these three buildings did not constitute a regulated horizontal multiple dwelling because they were not a garden-type maisonette complex. Alternatively, the agency also found that although the buildings share common ownership and a common boiler, they are not a regulated horizontal multiple dwelling because they do not share sufficient other common facilities or services. Supreme Court's judgment confirming the agency's determination was affirmed by the Appellate Division. 137 A.D.2d 967, 524 N.Y.S.2d 117.

On these appeals, DHCR now argues that the Rent Stabilization Law and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act apply to horizontal multiple dwellings other than garden-type maisonette complexes and that its factual determinations in each case are supported by substantial evidence, are not arbitrary or irrational and therefore should be upheld.

DHCR's interpretation of the statutes it administers, if not unreasonable or irrational, is entitled to deference (Matter of Colt Indus. v. New York City Dept. of Fin., 66 N.Y.2d 466, 471, 497 N.Y.S.2d 887, 488 N.E.2d 817; Matter of New York Pub. Interest Research Group v. New York State Dept. of Ins., 66 N.Y.2d 444, 448, 497 N.Y.S.2d 645, 488 N.E.2d 466; Matter of Howard v. Wyman, 28 N.Y.2d 434, 437-438, 322 N.Y.S.2d 683, 271 N.E.2d 528; Matter of Mounting & Finishing Co. v. McGoldrick, 294 N.Y. 104, 108, 60 N.E.2d 825). The...