Case ID: ny3d_23/html/0999-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[16 NE3d 1243, 992 NYS2d 764]
    In the Matter of Kelley S. Boyd, Respondent, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal et al., Appellants.
    Decided June 26, 2014
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Gary R. Connor, General Counsel, New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, New York City (Jack Kuttner of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, appellant.
    
      Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, RC., Forest Hills (David I. Paul and Jeffrey M. Steinitz of counsel), for 232/242 Realty Co. LLC and others, appellants.
    
      Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation Legal Services, New York City (Kenneth N Rosenfeld and Matthew J. Chachére of counsel), for respondent.
    
      South Brooklyn Legal Services, Brooklyn (Edward Josephson of counsel) and Adriene Holder, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Ellen Davidson of counsel), for Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development and others, amici curiae.
    
      Justin R. La Mort, Brooklyn, and Madeline La Forgia, for CAMBA Legal Services, Inc., amicus curiae.
    
      Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, New York City (Ronald S. Languedoc of counsel), for Bill Perkins and another, amici curiae.
    
      Adele Bartlett, Deputy General Counsel, Office of Manhattan Borough President, New York City, and Chaumtoli Huq, General Counsel for Litigation, Office of New York City Public Advocate, for Letitia James and others, amici curiae.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated, and certified question answered in the negative. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s determination denying tenant’s petition for administrative review was not arbitrary or capricious, as tenant failed to set forth sufficient indicia of fraud to warrant consideration of the rental history beyond the four-year statutory period (see Matter of Grimm v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin., 15 NY3d 358, 366-367 [2010]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.