Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Application of CLERMONT YORK ASSOCIATES, Petitioner-Appellant, For a Judgment, etc., v. Joseph B. LYNCH, etc., Respondent-Respondent, Clermont York Tenants Association, Intervenor-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about August 12, 1999, which denied petitioner's application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to modify respondent's order, dated March 18, 1999, to the extent that it revoked that portion of the District Rent Administrator's order approving a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase for facade restoration, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
On April 17, 1998, respondent's District Rent Administrator granted petitioner's application for a MCI rent increase for facade restoration and roof replacement that petitioner completed six years earlier. On June 6, 1998, after the tenants had filed their Petitions for Administrative Review (PARs), a portion of the facade of the subject premises collapsed, forcing the closure of York Avenue for two days and resulting in the placement of an emergency violation on the subject premises by the New York City Department of Buildings. Respondent Commissioner granted the PARs to the extent of revoking the MCI rent increase for facade restoration and this Article 78 proceeding was commenced.
Respondent Commissioner's determination revoking the District Administrator's approval of a MCI rent increase for facade restoration was neither made in violation of respondent's rules of review nor arbitrary and capricious. Contrary to petitioner's contentions, the Commissioner was not precluded from considering de novo the new evidence concerning the facade collapse, which could not have been submitted with the tenants' PARs, and revocation of the MCI rent increase, rather than its suspension, was completely warranted on the instant facts. Furthermore, petitioner did not demonstrate that it suffered substantial prejudice as a result of administrative delay.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 11, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)