Case ID: ad2d_184/html/0276-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Marin Management, Appellant, v Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent, et al., Respondent.
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.) entered April 26, 1991, which, inter alia, dismissed the petition seeking to review and annul a determination by respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated August 9, 1990 which upon a reopened proceeding, determined a rent overcharge to exist, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The reopening of the proceeding, to which the petitioner had never voiced any objection, was both proper and rational (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2527.8; cf., Matter of Cupo v McGoldrick, 278 App Div 108), and the subsequent finding of a rent overcharge is amply supported by the record (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230). The alternative procedure for adjusting the base rent utilized by the Division was authorized (Matter of 61 Jane St. Assocs. v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 65 NY2d 898, affg 108 AD2d 636) and had a rational basis in the record that was before the Division (Matter of Lavanant v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 148 AD2d 185, 192). The remaining arguments were not raised below (cf., Matter of 985 Fifth Ave. v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 171 AD2d 572, lv denied 78 NY2d 861), but, were we to consider them, we would find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Ross, JJ.