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: 1000 LLC, Petitioner, v. Judith CALOGERO, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, et al., Respondents.
Determination of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated February 7, 2003, which found respondent tenant's rent properly reduced to one dollar per month as the result of a reduction in services, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, Bronx County [Janice L. Bowman, J.], entered on or about November 21, 2003) dismissed, without costs.
A fire in 2001 rendered the premises in question uninhabitable. The finding that the subject apartment had reverted back to rent stabilization upon its deconversion from cooperative status in 1996 (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.11[l ]; see Federal Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 87 N.Y.2d 325, 639 N.Y.S.2d 293, 662 N.E.2d 773 [1995] ) was rationally based and a reasonable interpretation of the statutes administered by this agency (see generally Matter of Salvati v. Eimicke, 72 N.Y.2d 784, 791, 537 N.Y.S.2d 16, 533 N.E.2d 1045 [1988] ). There is no support for petitioner's assertion that the agency had to establish the proper rent-stabilized rent before determining the proper rent based on reduction of services. The dwelling had already been rendered uninhabitable, and the only question presented was the proper rent at that time. In any event, it is uncontested that the tenant had been paying rent of approximately $500 per month for over four years, which was sufficient to establish the baseline rental history (see Matter of AVJ Realty Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 8 A.D.3d 14, 778 N.Y.S.2d 12 [2004]; Matter of Tockwotten Assoc. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 7 A.D.3d 453, 777 N.Y.S.2d 465 [2004] ). The agency also properly rejected petitioner's assertion that the tenant had been offered a lease but turned it down; petitioner offered no competent evidence on this point that would raise an issue of fact necessitating a hearing (cf. Matter of Futterman v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 264 A.D.2d 593, 595, 695 N.Y.S.2d 310 [1999], lv. dismissed 94 N.Y.2d 847, 703 N.Y.S.2d 70, 724 N.E.2d 765 [1999] ).
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 12, 2005
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)