Opinion
July 5, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.).
The interpretations of respondent agency of statutes which it administers are entitled to deference if not unreasonable or irrational (Matter of Salvati v. Eimicke, 72 N.Y.2d 784, 791). Here, the Deputy Commissioner rationally disallowed that portion of the MCI increases to petitioner, the sponsor/holder of unsold shares in the cooperative complex, which were paid from a fund established for and owned by the cooperative corporation which the Deputy Commissioner properly concluded was the functional equivalent of a reserve fund (see, Matter of Versailles Realty Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 76 N.Y.2d 325). Petitioner, as the party seeking the rent increases, had the burden of proving the MCI expenditures (see, 9 NYCRR 2522.4 [a] [3] [i] [c]). Respondent weighed the inconsistent figures and reached a rational conclusion in reducing the allowed cost of the new boiler/burner, a conclusion which should not now be rejected (see, Matter of Stork Rest. v. Boland, 282 N.Y. 256). Further, the determination that the MCI disallowance was applicable to tenant Adolph was not inconsistent with or a reversal of the prior denial of the Adolph petition for administrative review since the Deputy Commissioner had expressly reserved the authority to apply to Adolph the determination in the complex-wide proceeding.
However, because petitioner had claimed that the replacement of windows throughout the buildings was for energy conservation purposes, respondent erred in denying petitioner a 50% MCI increase for replacing the windows in the Tavon apartment, even though those windows were only a few years old (see, Operational Bulletin 84-4).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.