De Luise v. Gliedman
Opinion of the Court
Judgment, entered November 22, 1983 in Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), granting this CPLR article 78 petition to the extent of remanding the matter for further action and continuing a temporary restraining order, is unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the temporary restraining order is lifted and the petition is denied and dismissed, without costs.
We have reviewed the record and find that there was literal compliance with the HPD regulations and that they were constitutionally sufficient to enable petitioner to voice its objections. We also note that HPD has since revised its regulations, in apparent recognition that their past procedures were not as desirable as they might have been. We also find that the now-completed improvements to the building were clearly necessary and that petitioner has had actual, good notice of E & O’s separate application for rent increases, and thus has a full opportunity to present its opposition.
Thus, we conclude that E & O’s loan application was not wrongly granted by HPD nor should the landlord be precluded from seeking the rent increases it is entitled to apply for under the statute. Accordingly, we see no purpose to be served by remanding the matter of the loan application to respondent HPD. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Ross, Carro and Fein, JJ. [120 Misc 2d 472.]
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.