Opinion
2015-03-18
In the Matter of Hardas K. KRIPALANI, appellant, v. STATE of New York DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, etc., respondent.
Hardas K. Kripalani, Flushing, N.Y., appellant pro se. Gary R. Connor, New York, N.Y. (Dawn Ivy Schindelman of counsel), for respondent.
Hardas K. Kripalani, Flushing, N.Y., appellant pro se. Gary R. Connor, New York, N.Y. (Dawn Ivy Schindelman of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration, dated January 4, 2012, finding that the maximum chargeable rent for the subject premises was proper, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lopresto, J.), dated June 22, 2012, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In this proceeding, in which the petitioner challenges an agency determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing, the court must consider whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion ( seeCPLR 7803[3]; Matter of London Leasing Ltd. Partnership v. Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 98 A.D.3d 668, 670, 950 N.Y.S.2d 145; Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d 768, 770, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98). In such a proceeding, courts “examine whether the action taken by the agency has a rational basis,” and will overturn that action only “where it is ‘taken without sound basis in reason’ or ‘regard to the facts' ” (Matter of Wooley v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 15 N.Y.3d 275, 280, 907 N.Y.S.2d 741, 934 N.E.2d 310, quoting Matter of Peckham v. Calogero, 12 N.Y.3d 424, 431, 883 N.Y.S.2d 751, 911 N.E.2d 813), or where it is “arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Deerpark Farms, LLC v. Agricultural & Farmland Protection Bd. of Orange County, 70 A.D.3d 1037, 1038, 896 N.Y.S.2d 126). In reviewing the determination of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR), “[t]he court may not substitute its judgment for that of the DHCR” (Matter of 85 E. Parkway Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 297 A.D.2d 675, 676, 747 N.Y.S.2d 115). “The DHCR's interpretation of the statutes and regulations it administers, if reasonable, must be upheld” ( id.).
As the Supreme Court properly concluded, in determining the maximum chargeable rent for the subject premises ( see9 NYCRR 2202.1, 2202.3), the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) did not act irrationally or in violation of lawful procedure, and its determination was not affected by an error of law, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion ( see Matter of Manko v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 88 A.D.3d 719, 721, 930 N.Y.S.2d 72; Matter of Shahid v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 84 A.D.3d 822, 921 N.Y.S.2d 864; Matter of Delillo v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 45 A.D.3d 682, 684, 845 N.Y.S.2d 821). In addition, there is no merit to the petitioner's contention that the DHCR violated lawful procedure or acted irrationally with respect to the effective date of its determination ( see generally9 NYCRR 2202.2, 2202.24).
The petitioner's remaining contention, that the subject apartment should be treated as rent-regulated, rather than rent-controlled, is not properly before this Court ( see Matter of Manko v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 88 A.D.3d at 721, 930 N.Y.S.2d 72; Matter of Acevedo v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 67 A.D.3d 785, 786, 889 N.Y.S.2d 78).