From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brusco v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 5, 1991
170 A.D.2d 184 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 5, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.).


The tenant in apartment 1B at 118 West 69th Street, New York, New York, filed a rent overcharge complaint on February 15, 1984. The petitioner, who is the landlord of those premises, failed to submit a complete rent history as he was requested. The District Rent Administrator issued an order on August 12, 1986 finding the owner in default, setting the rent at $564.75 as of August 1984 and finding an overcharge, including interest and excess security, of $5,810.03. When petitioner filed a petition for administrative review (PAR), he stated that he was unable to produce leases prior to 1980, the year he purchased the building. The Deputy Commissioner denied the PAR.

Effective April 1, 1984, the Rent Stabilization Code required landlords to keep rent records for an apartment for four years. The law in effect on April 1, 1984 (old law) required the landlord to maintain a complete rent history. Although New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's order was issued after April 1, 1984, the overcharge complaint was filed previously thereto. As this court held in Matter of Lavanant v State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal ( 148 A.D.2d 185), the "old law" is to be applied.

Petitioner's argument that the respondent has not complied with his request under the Freedom of Information Law to obtain prior rent records was first made after the PAR was denied. In the course of judicial review, the court may not consider arguments or evidence not contained in the administrative record. (Matter of Rozmae Realty v State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 160 A.D.2d 343, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 712.) We therefore find that the administrative agency's determination was supported by a rational basis.

Furthermore, petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption of constitutionality of the Rent Stabilization Code by proof beyond a reasonable doubt as it relates to the imposition of a rent ceiling on vacant units. (See, Hotel Dorset Co. v Trust for Cultural Resources, 46 N.Y.2d 358, 370.)

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Brusco v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 5, 1991
170 A.D.2d 184 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Brusco v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Case Details

Full title:NICHOLAS E. BRUSCO, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 5, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 184 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Rezplex v. N.Y. City Dept

Supreme Court properly ruled that, having failed to assert the ownership issue before HPD, petitioner may not…

Mott v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Since the agency's conclusion that the petitioner failed to do so has a rational basis in the record, the…