From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 1995
216 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 5, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

"It is well established that horizontal multifamily structures may be subject to rent regulation provided that they share common facilities and services so as to warrant treating the housing as an integral unit" (Matter of Triades v. Mirabal, 172 A.D.2d 541, 542; see, Matter of Salvati v. Eimicke, 72 N.Y.2d 784, 792). Moreover, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal's intrepretation of the statutes that it administers, if not unreasonable or irrational, is entitled to deference (see, Matter of Salvati v. Eimicke, supra, at 791).

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the determination of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal that the two buildings in question are a horizontal multiple dwelling and subject to rent regulation because they have common ownership and share common facilities is not arbitrary and capricious (see, CPLR 7803).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P.J., Joy, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 1995
216 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

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

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROSA PETRUSO, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF…

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

Date published: Jun 5, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
627 N.Y.S.2d 450

Citing Cases

In re Livingston

Horizontal multiple dwellings may be subject to rent regulation provided that they share common facilities…