Rickman Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated May 2, 2000, as amended May 4, 2000, modifying so much of a determination of the District Rent Administrator, dated February 23, 1996, as granted, in part, the petitioner’s application for a major capital improvement rent increase for rent-stabilized tenants, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated September 7, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

*553Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) reasonably and rationally determined that the installation of windows in a defective and unworkmanlike manner was not a “major capital improvement,” notwithstanding the passage of time between the installation of the windows and the DHCR’s inspection (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [2]; see Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn, v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206; Matter of 36-08 Queens Realty v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 222 AD2d 440; Matter of Wesley Ave. Assoc, v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 206 AD2d 378; Matter of West Vil. Assoc, v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 277 AD2d 111; Matter of Simkowitz v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 256 AD2d 51). Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, O’Brien and Adams, JJ., concur.