Opinion
04-13-2017
In re LONDON TERRACE GARDENS L.P., Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., New York (Paul N. Gruber of counsel), for appellant. Adam H. Schuman, New York (Sandra A. Joseph and Mark F. Palomino of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, respondent. Law Office of Jay Stuart Dankberg, New York (Jay Stuart Dankberg of counsel), for Amy Eichenwald Golding and Kenneth Blake Golding, respondents.
Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., New York (Paul N. Gruber of counsel), for appellant.
Adam H. Schuman, New York (Sandra A. Joseph and Mark F. Palomino of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, respondent.
Law Office of Jay Stuart Dankberg, New York (Jay Stuart Dankberg of counsel), for Amy Eichenwald Golding and Kenneth Blake Golding, respondents.
RENWICK, J.P., MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, WEBBER, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered December 3, 2014, denying the petition seeking to annul a determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated September 30, 2013, which denied petitioner owner's petition for administrative review (PAR) of a rent overcharge determination, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The determination is rationally based in the record, and not "arbitrary and capricious" (CPLR 7803[3] ; see Matter of Partnership 92 LP & Bldg. Mgt. Co., Inc. v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 46 A.D.3d 425, 428, 849 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1st Dept.2007], affd. 11 N.Y.3d 859, 873 N.Y.S.2d 247, 901 N.E.2d 740 [2008] ). DHCR providently exercised its discretion in declining to accept a late-proffered invoice at the PAR stage, especially given the lack of an explanation for the delay (see 9 NYCRR 2527.5 [d]; 2529.6; Matter of Dworman v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 94 N.Y.2d 359, 374, 704 N.Y.S.2d 192, 725 N.E.2d 613 [1999] ).
DHCR's assessment of interest on overcharge amounts—including periods in which the tenant respondents paid the excessive rent into escrow, rather than to the owner—was consistent with the statutory purposes of discouraging overcharges and encouraging prompt repayment of overcharge amounts (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 26–516[a]; 9 NYCRR 2526.1 [a][1]; Mohassel v. Fenwick, 5 N.Y.3d 44, 52, 799 N.Y.S.2d 758, 832 N.E.2d 1174 [2005] ; Matter
of 10th St. Assoc. LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 34 Misc.3d 1240[A], 2012 WL 882783, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50484[U], *5, 2012 WL 882783 [Sup.Ct., N.Y. County 2012], affd. 110 A.D.3d 605, 973 N.Y.S.2d 619 [1st Dept.2013] ).
In determining the date of the last vacancy for purposes of computing the longevity increase, DHCR properly relied on the date of the earliest registered rent for the prior tenant (see Matter of Hawthorne Gardens v. State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 4 A.D.3d 135, 136, 771 N.Y.S.2d 347 [1st Dept.2004] ).
Petitioner was afforded adequate due process throughout the proceedings (see Matter of Beck–Nichols v. Bianco, 20 N.Y.3d 540, 559, 964 N.Y.S.2d 456, 987 N.E.2d 233 [2013] ; Matter of Griffin v. City of New York, 127 A.D.3d 412, 412, 4 N.Y.S.3d 505 [1st Dept.2015], appeal dismissed and lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1191, 16 N.Y.S.3d 49, 37 N.E.3d 107 [2015] ; 9 NYCRR 2527.5 [j] ).