IN RE: 251 WEST 74 OWNERS CORP. (2026)

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered February 15, 2024, granting the petition to vacate respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR) determination which denied the petition for administrative review and affirmed the rent reduction order of the rent administrator, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, DHCR's determination reinstated, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.

Petitioner has not demonstrated that Covington Realty, LLC, the sponsor and proprietary lessor could not challenge the rent reduction order itself, which is a requirement for petitioner to assert third-party standing (see New York County Lawyers' Assn. v State of New York, 294 A.D.2d 69, 74–75 [1st Dept 2002] ).

Even considering the merits of the due process claim, Sackman Enterprises, LLC was the managing agent for both petitioner and Covington.  Sackman's address was listed on the 2021 registration statement with DHCR. Covington could have provided their own name and contact information to DHCR since rent registrations are owner-reported (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6[i] ).  However, they evidently did not.  Additionally, while respondent tenants' leases stated that Covington was the landlord, the leases specifically provide Sackman's address as the point of contact.  Further, Covington designated Sackman to receive process on its behalf with the New York Department of State.  For these reasons, petitioner fails to state a due process violation (see Gutterman v. Eimicke, 125 FRD 348, 353 [ED N.Y.1989] ).  The rent reduction order was not arbitrary and capricious nor was it in error of law (see CPLR 7803[3];  Matter of Howard v. Wyman, 28 N.Y.2d 434, 438 [1971] ).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.