Case Title: Matter of Callen v New York City Loft Bd.

Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 00957

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2022-02-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Matter of Callen v New York City Loft Bd.

2022 NY Slip Op 00957

Decided on February 15, 2022

Court of Appeals

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 15, 2022

No. 4

[*1]In the Matter of Robinson Callen, & c., Respondent,
vNew York City Loft Board, Appellant, Richard Fiscina, et al., Respondents. (And Another Proceeding.)


Diana Lawless, for appellant.
[*2]Margaret B. Sandercock, for respondents Luke Weinstock, et al.
Magda L. Cruz, for respondent Robinson Callen, & c.


MEMORANDUM.:
In each proceeding, the order insofar as appealed from should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division with directions to remand to the New York City Loft Board for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.
In accordance with its regulations (see  29 RCNY § 1-06 [j] [5]), the Loft Board reviewed and rejected the parties' proposed settlement agreement as perpetuating an illegal living arrangement. The rationality of that determination is not before us (see 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co. , 98 NY2d 144, 151 n 3 [2002]). Under these limited circumstances, it was not irrational for the Board to remand for further proceedings, thereby declining to give effect to a provision of the settlement agreement in which tenants purported to withdraw their application for Loft Law coverage.
In each proceeding, order insofar as appealed from reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, with directions to remand to the New York City Loft Board for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.
Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Wilson, Singas and Cannataro concur.
Judge Troutman took no part.
Decided February 15, 2022