HLV Associates v. Aponte
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Weill v. New York City Department of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Molloy v. New York City Police Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- de Blasio v. New York City Conflict of Interest Bd. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- de Blasio v. New York City Conflict of Interest Bd. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- de Blasio v. New York City Conflict of Interest Bd. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Matter of 333 E. 49th Partnership, LP v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of 333 E. 49th Partnership, LP v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Order, Supreme
The IAS Court did not err by considering the issue of whether the "primary use” exemption to the Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR 2520.6 [r] [4] [x]) was applicable here.
An article 78 proceeding is limited to consideration of the evidence and arguments raised before the agency when the administrative determination was rendered and "[t]he function of the court * * * is to determine * * * whether the determination had a rational basis in the record or was arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Fanelli v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 90 AD2d 756, 757, affd 58 NY2d 952). Here, since determination of the primary use issue is implicit in any rational determination pursuant to section 2520.6 (r) (4) (x) as to whether the Rent Stabilization Code was applicable to plaintiff’s parking garage, and since the administrative record contained evidence relevant to determining the primary use issue, review by the IAS Court was appropriate.
However, it was error to resolve the issue on the basis of the record presented. The relevant evidence was limited and inconclusive and thus insufficient to make a determination. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.