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 MISSIONARY SISTERS OF the SACRED HEART, Petitioner-Appellant, For a Judgment, etc., v. DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered February 22, 2001, which denied petitioner landlord's CPLR article 78 application seeking to annul a determination of respondent, dated August 18, 2000, finding a reduction in services and ordering a rent reduction, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's determination that the reduction in the availability of the building laundry room from 24 to 15 hours per day constituted a reduction in service had a rational basis in the record. The credited testimony of the tenants established that the reduction in hours had a significant adverse impact on the tenants' ability to enjoy the laundry service. The question of what constitutes a required service and whether such service was being maintained was a factual issue to be determined by respondent (see, Fresh Meadows Assocs. v. Conciliation and Appeals Bd., 88 Misc.2d 1003, 1004, 390 N.Y.S.2d 351, affd. 55 A.D.2d 559, 390 N.Y.S.2d 69, affd., 42 N.Y.2d 925, 397 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 366 N.E.2d 1361).
Respondent's determination herein was based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, supported by the record, and not contrary to reason. Grenadier Realty Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal, 225 A.D.2d 425, 639 N.Y.S.2d 367 is distinguishable because in that case there was no testimony establishing the adverse impact of the reduction in laundry room hours. We have considered and rejected petitioner's remaining arguments.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 01, 2001
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)