Court Opinion

ID: 9927373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 21:07:38.716854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:13.741040
License: Public Domain

71st St. Props. LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. &
                  Community Renewal
               2024 NY Slip Op 30286(U)
                    January 23, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
         Docket Number: Index No. 158627/2023
                   Judge: Judy H. Kim
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 158627/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. JUDY H. KIM                                                PART                              04
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          158627/2023
             71ST STREET PROPERTIES LLC,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         08/30/2023
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
             NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             COMMUNITY RENEWAL, STACEY MCCOSKY,
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
            were read on this motion for                                               ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)                .

                      In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner 71st Street Properties, LLC seeks an order, by way

            of mandamus, directing respondent the New York State Division of Housing and Community

            Renewal (“DHCR”) to issue a final determination on petitioner’s application to evict respondent

            Stacey McCosky—the only tenant remaining in the building owned by petitioner at 1343 Second

            Avenue, New York, New York (the “Building”)—from the Building within thirty days. For the

            reasons set forth below, petitioner’s motion is denied and this proceeding is dismissed.

                      On April 29, 2020, petitioner filed an application with the New York City Department of

            Buildings (“DOB”) to demolish the Building, which was approved on March 2, 2021 (NYSCEF

            Doc. No. 1 [Petition at ¶¶10-12]).

                      On September 22, 2022, pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code §2524.5(a)(2), petitioner filed

            another application with DHCR for approval to refuse to renew McCosky’s rent-stabilized lease

            on the grounds of demolition (Id. at ¶¶5, 13, 26). On October 7, 2022, DHCR informed petitioner

            that this application did not meet the “requirements for docketing” as it was not “accompanied by
             158627/2023 71ST STREET PROPERTIES LLC vs. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING                           Page 1 of 4
             AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 158627/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2024

            architectural plans for the project approved by the DOB, and proof of financial ability to complete

            the project” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 6). On November 29, 2022, petitioner informed DHCR that the

            material sought had already been included with petitioner’s initial application (NYSCEF Doc. No.

            1 [Petition at ¶18). On December 9, 2022, DHCR assigned petitioner’s application to Docket

            Number KW410004OE (Id. at ¶20).

                   On May 17, 2023, DHCR again requested that petitioner provide architectural plans

            approved by the DOB and proof of financial ability to undertake the demolition (Id. at ¶21) which

            petitioner provided on June 19, 2023 (Id. at ¶22). To date, DHCR has not issued a final

            determination on petitioner’s application.

                   On August 30, 2023, petitioner commenced this proceeding, arguing that it has been

            prejudiced by DHCR’s delay in processing petitioner’s application since it cannot undergo the

            Building’s demolition and subsequent redevelopment until McCosky is evicted (Id. at ¶33).

            DHCR opposes petitioner’s motion, arguing that petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief

            because the DHCR has actively processed petitioner’s application and a determination as to the

            merits of petitioner’s application is a discretionary, rather than ministerial, act. Respondent further

            asserts that petitioner’s application is complex and requires a thorough review and potential

            evidentiary hearing to ensure due process is afforded to those at risk of eviction.

                                                       DISCUSSION

                    “Article 78 is the codification of the common-law writs, including a writ of mandamus to

            compel. Mandamus to compel is a judicial command to an officer or body to perform a specified

            ministerial act that is required by law to be performed. It does not lie to enforce a duty that

            is discretionary” (Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v NY City Police Dept., 152 AD3d 113,

            117 [1st Dept 2017] [internal citations omitted]; see also CPLR §7803[1]). As a general matter,

             158627/2023 71ST STREET PROPERTIES LLC vs. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING          Page 2 of 4
             AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 158627/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2024

            “DHCR’s decision regarding whether or not to grant petitioner’s application to terminate the

            tenancy of its tenants so petitioner may proceed with the demolition/renovation of its building is a

            discretionary matter” for which mandamus relief does not lie (Matter of 81 Warren St. Realty

            Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2008 NY Slip Op 31030[U], *5

            [Sup Ct, NY County 2008]).

                   Although petitioner seeks an order directing DHCR to address petitioner’s pending

            application within a set timeframe (rather than directing DHCR to grant its application), mandamus

            is still inappropriate. “In light to its numerous other duties involving administration of the rent

            laws, the internal allocation of DHCR’s resources is necessarily discretionary and not strictly

            ministerial in nature” (Audubon Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, etc.,

            148 Misc 2d 831, 833 [Sup Ct, NY County 1990]). While “[t]his court is mindful of petitioner’s

            frustration occasioned by the delay in processing his application … the legislature which

            empowers DHCR has not imposed any time limitations on its decision-making process” and, “[a]s

            our appellate courts repeatedly remind us, an administrative agency is entitled to great deference

            in matters within its authority and area of expertise” (In re 81 Warren St. Ry Corp. v New York,

            2008 NY Slip Op 31030[U] [Sup Ct, New York County 2008] citing Academic Health

            Professionals Insurance Association v. M.Q. of New York, Inc., 30 AD3d 165 [1st Dept 2006]).

            In short, “[w]hile DHCR is not proceeding with the processing of petitioner’s application as

            expeditiously as petitioner expects, it is clear that DHCR is fulfilling its duty and processing the

            application” (Id.). Accordingly, it is not appropriate for this Court to “direct DHCR to render a

            decision on the instant matter within a specified period of time” (Id.).

             158627/2023 71ST STREET PROPERTIES LLC vs. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING         Page 3 of 4
             AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 158627/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2024

                   In light of the foregoing, it is

                   ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed.

                   This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

                   1/23/2024
                     DATE                                                      HON. JUDY H. KIM, J.S.C.
            CHECK ONE:                X   CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED          X   DENIED   GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

            APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN    FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

            158627/2023 71ST STREET PROPERTIES LLC vs. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING         Page 4 of 4
            AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL ET AL
            Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]