Case Name: In the Matter of 333 East 49th Associates, LP, et al., Appellants, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2007-11-27
Citations: 9 N.Y.3d 982
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of 333 East 49th Associates, LP, et al., Appellants, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 982–984

Head Matter:
[879 NE2d 158, 849 NYS2d 19]
In the Matter of 333 East 49th Associates, LP, et al., Appellants, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration, Respondent.
Decided November 27, 2007
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Shaw and Binder, New York City (Robert H. Gordon of counsel), for appellants.
Gary R. Connor, New York City, and Jeffrey G. Kelly for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
A rational basis exists for the Division of Housing and Community Renewal's determination that petitioners failed to maintain adequate janitorial services warranting a rent reduction (see Matter of Gilman v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 99 NY2d 144, 149 [2002]). The determination, implicitly rejecting petitioners' claim that the violation was de minimis, is rationally based on the inspector's observations of debris in the compactor rooms, which confirmed the tenants' sworn complaint of filthy compactor rooms that were not maintained. DHCR's determination that petitioners reduced services by failing to maintain the compactor rooms was not irrational and must be sustained (see Matter of KSLM-Columbus Apts., Inc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Re newal, 5 NY3d 303, 312 [2005]; Matter of Mid-State Mgt. Corp. v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 112 AD2d 72, 75-76 [1st Dept 1985], affd 66 NY2d 1032 [1985]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo and Jones concur; Judges Read, Smith and Pigott dissent and vote to reverse for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum by Justice George D. Marlow at the Appellate Division (40 AD3d 516, 517-520 [2007]).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.