From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Steel v. Dept for Aging of City of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 20, 2005
14 A.D.3d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

5145

January 20, 2005.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered June 16, 2003, dismissing this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the denial of a senior citizen rent increase exemption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.


Respondent agency's decision to deny petitioner's request for this exemption benefit was neither arbitrary nor capricious, but was rationally based on the facts. There was no violation of due process rights by the court's failure to set forth concrete figures in concluding that the agency's determination was correct and not irrational. The court reviewed the agency's calculation, finding it based on careful analysis of the documentation and consistent with the rules and regulations. Petitioner's constitutional challenges to the Urstadt Law and legislative procedure are without merit ( see Matter of 241 E. 22nd St. Corp. v. City Rent Agency, 33 NY2d 134), improperly raised for the first time on appeal ( Matter of Wallace v. Environmental Control Bd. of City of N.Y., 8 AD3d 78), and inappropriately raised in an article 78 proceeding ( Press v. County of Monroe, 50 NY2d 695, 702).


Summaries of

In re Steel v. Dept for Aging of City of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 20, 2005
14 A.D.3d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

In re Steel v. Dept for Aging of City of N.Y

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOHN ALBERT STEEL, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT FOR THE AGING…

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

Date published: Jan 20, 2005

Citations

14 A.D.3d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
787 N.Y.S.2d 869

Citing Cases

In Matter of the City of New York v. Novello

Therefore, the agency's determination was rational. Steel v Department for the Aging, 14 AD3d 423 (1st Dept.…