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

• Decision Date: 11 September 2013
• Parties: In the Matter of Randy WATSON, appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (N.Y.S.D.H.C.R.), respondent-respondent, et al., respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

109 A.D.3d 833
971 N.Y.S.2d 145
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05828

In the Matter of Randy WATSON, appellant,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (N.Y.S.D.H.C.R.), respondent-respondent, et al., respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Sept. 11, 2013.

[971 N.Y.S.2d 146]

Goldberg Scudieri & Lindenberg, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Robert H. Goldberg of counsel), for appellant.

Gary R. Connor, New York, N.Y. (Sandra A. Joseph of counsel), for respondent-respondent.

DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SANDRA L. SGROI, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

[109 A.D.3d 833]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, Office of Rent Administration, dated April 8, 2011, which denied a request for administrative review and confirmed a determination of the Rent Administrator dated September 3, 2010, finding, inter alia, that the “base date” for the proceeding was July 17, 2005, that the initial legal registered rent for the subject apartment was $1,200, and that there were no grounds to examine the rental history of the subject apartment prior to the “base date,” the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy J.), entered February 3, 2012, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In reviewing a determination made by an administrative agency where the agency was not required to conduct a trial-type hearing directed by law, “the court's inquiry is limited to whether the determination is arbitrary and capricious, or without a rational basis in the record and a reasonable basis in law” (Matter of ATM One, LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 37 A.D.3d 714, 714, 831 N.Y.S.2d 436;seeCPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Gomez v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 79 A.D.3d 878, 878–879, 912 N.Y.S.2d 444;Matter of 508 Realty Assoc., LLC v. New 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 (hereinafter the DHCR) of the statutes and regulations that it administers is entitled to deference, and must be upheld if reasonable ( see Matter of Gomez v. New York...