Case ID: ad2d_299/html/0552-01.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 Rickman Realty Corp., Appellant, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent.
    [750 NYS2d 518]
   In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated May 2, 2000, as amended May 4, 2000, modifying so much of a determination of the District Rent Administrator, dated February 23, 1996, as granted, in part, the petitioner’s application for a major capital improvement rent increase for rent-stabilized tenants, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated September 7, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) reasonably and rationally determined that the installation of windows in a defective and unworkmanlike manner was not a “major capital improvement,” notwithstanding the passage of time between the installation of the windows and the DHCR’s inspection (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [2]; see Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn, v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206; Matter of 36-08 Queens Realty v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 222 AD2d 440; Matter of Wesley Ave. Assoc, v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 206 AD2d 378; Matter of West Vil. Assoc, v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 277 AD2d 111; Matter of Simkowitz v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 256 AD2d 51). Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, O’Brien and Adams, JJ., concur.