251 West 98th Street Owners, L. L. C. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Belnord Realty Associates, L.P. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- 1000 LLC v. Calogero (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- 370 Manhattan Ave. Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Weinreb Management v. New York State Division of Housing & Community (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Mayflower Development Corp. v. Roldan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
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 Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered on or about October 21, 1999, which granted petitioner landlord’s motion to reargue an order, entered May 27, 1999, denying its application to annul respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR) determination denying it major capital improvement (MCI) rent increases, and, upon reargument, adhered to the prior order, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the. order entered May 27, 1999 unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order entered on or about October 21, 1999.
We reject the landlord’s argument that prior, unreviewed administrative orders granting maximum base rent (MBR) increases and denying a decreased services complaint precluded DHCR’s finding herein that certain class “C”, i.e., immediately hazardous, violations of record against the property had not been corrected, and DHCR’s denial of the landlord’s MCI applications on that ground. First, DHCR’s Commissioner should not be required to adopt unreviewed errors made by a Rent Administrator. Second, there is no indication that the landlord’s MBR applications were contested in any manner, or that the tenants’ decreased services complaint in any manner involved the “C” violations in question. We also reject the landlord’s argument that the finding of extant “C” violations is arbitrary
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.