Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of an Article 78 proceeding challenging a New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal determination that reduced the rent for a rent-regulated apartment. The court held that the agency’s finding of decreased services, based on a physical inspection, had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Division of Housing and Community Renewal rationally determined that services to the subject apartment had decreased, warranting a rent reduction.
- Whether the agency determination was arbitrary and capricious under CPLR article 78.
Holdings
- The determination that services to the subject apartment had decreased, warranting a rent reduction, was rationally supported by the record.
- The agency determination was not arbitrary and capricious because it had a rational basis in the record.
Key quotations
“Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination in this case, which was based upon a physical inspection of the premises, had a rational basis in the record, and was not arbitrary and capricious” (1032)
Factual background
The Rent Administrator found a decrease in services in a rent-regulated apartment and directed a reduction in the rent payable. The determination was based on a physical inspection of the premises. The Division of Housing and Community Renewal denied the owner's administrative review application, and the courts upheld the agency's determination.
Procedural history
The New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal Deputy Commissioner denied the owner's application for administrative review of a Rent Administrator order directing, among other things, a reduction in rent for a rent-regulated apartment. The owner commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, Westchester County. Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, and the Appellate Division affirmed.