IN RE: Application of The NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

IN RE: Application of The NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, For a Judgment, etc., v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Decided: January 30, 1997

Before MURPHY, P.J., and MILONAS, NARDELLI and ANDRIAS, JJ. I. Scott Bieler, for Petitioner-Appellant. Mary Ellen Cronly, David Rozenholc, for Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered October 25, 1995, which denied petitioner's application brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the denial of petitioner's petitions for administrative review and to direct respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal to issue certificates of eviction for the subject apartments, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The denial of petitioner's applications for certificates of eviction was amply supported by the record and a rational application of the prerequisite regulatory requirement, since petitioner failed to demonstrate that it required the premises for its immediate use in connection with its charitable or educational purposes (New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations [9 NYCRR 2204.9[a][3]] ).  Neither DHCR nor the court imposed an “immediate need” requirement.   Thus, based on the record, DHCR and the court properly upheld the finding of the Rent Administrator that petitioner had not shown it required the premises for use in its educational purposes within a reasonable time, as former apartments converted into offices in the same building were vacant or underutilized, there were no specific plans as to when or how the subject apartments would be used, vacant offices also existed in other buildings owned by petitioner, and petitioner was even unaware of the number of vacant offices it held.   Petitioner thus “failed to demonstrate that the Commissioner's determination was without rational basis or warrant in the record or that it was arbitrary or capricious.”  (Plaza Management Co. v. City Rent Agency, 48 A.D.2d 129, 131, 368 N.Y.S.2d 178, affd. 37 N.Y.2d 837, 378 N.Y.S.2d 33, 340 N.E.2d 468).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.