Case Name: In the Matter of Fain Kolinsky, Also Known as Fain Clark, Appellant, v. Darryl C. Towns, Respondent, and NYC 107, LLC, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-03-08
Citations: 137 A.D.3d 496
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Fain Kolinsky, Also Known as Fain Clark, Appellant, v Darryl C. Towns, Respondent, and NYC 107, LLC, Respondent.
Judges: Concur—Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Renwick and Richter, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Fain Kolinsky, Also Known as Fain Clark, Appellant, v Darryl C. Towns, Respondent, and NYC 107, LLC, Respondent.
[26 NYS3d 466]

Opinion:
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered November 17, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the petition seeking to annul respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR) determination, dated August 1, 2012, upholding a district rent administrator's finding that respondent NYC 107, LLC (owner) is entitled to an individual apartment improvement (IAI) rent increase, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
DHCR's determination is supported by a rational basis and is not arbitrary and capricious (see generally Flacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys., 69 NY2d 355, 363 [1987]). DHCR's finding that the invoice, checks, and worksheet submitted by the owner provided adequate documentary support for the claimed IAI costs is entitled to judicial deference (see Matter of Hanjorgiris v Lynch, 298 AD2d 251 [1st Dept 2002]). Petitioner's challenge to the owner's submissions, based solely on her own statements, are insufficient to warrant a contrary finding {id.).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Concur—Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Renwick and Richter, JJ.