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: 101 EAST 16TH STREET REALTY LLC et al., Petitioners–Respondents, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent–Appellant.
Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered June 13, 2023, granting the petition to annul orders from respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated November 15, 2022, December 2, 2022, and December 6, 2022, which affirmed the Rent Administrator's orders partially denying petitioners’ applications for rent increases based upon the installation of major capital improvements (MCI), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed, without costs.
The court should have denied the petition. As we recently determined in Matter of 4040 BA LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal (221 AD3d 440 [1st Dept 2023]), DHCR had a rational basis to conclude that the part K amendments from the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) should be applied when considering MCI applications for which there had been no determination as of the HSTPA's effective date. Application of the HSTPA part K amendments affected only the propriety of petitioners’ prospective rent increases and had no potentially problematic retroactive effect (see 4040 BA LLC at 440–441; see also Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 35 NY3d 332, 365 [2020]).
We find no basis to remand to Supreme Court, as petitioners request, for a review of petitioners’ unpreserved claim that application of the part K amendments might result in prejudice or undue hardship (see Matter of Peckham v. Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 430 [2009]; Matter of Almanzar v City of N.Y. City Civ. Serv. Commn., 166 AD3d 522, 524 [1st Dept 2018]).
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.
Docket No: 2075
Decided: April 16, 2024
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)