Opinion
11970 Index No. 100139/19 Case No. 2020-00828
10-06-2020
In re MONTGOMERY REALTY NY, LLC, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Respondent–Respondent.
Abrams Fensterman Fensterman Eisman Ferrara Formato Wolf & Carone LLP, Brooklyn (Andrea J. Caruso of counsel), for appellants. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Daniel Matza–Brown of counsel), for respondent.
Abrams Fensterman Fensterman Eisman Ferrara Formato Wolf & Carone LLP, Brooklyn (Andrea J. Caruso of counsel), for appellants.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Daniel Matza–Brown of counsel), for respondent.
Kapnick, J.P., Oing, Scarpulla, Shulman, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 29, 2019, denying the petition to overturn a determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated November 21, 2018, (HPD), which denied, as untimely, petitioner's application for an RPTL 421–a tax exemption, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
HPD's rejection of petitioner's application for an RPTL 421–a tax exemption as untimely had a rational basis in the record and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Red Apple Child Dev. Ctr. v. Chancellor's Bd. of Review, 307 A.D.2d 815, 815–816, 762 N.Y.S.2d 805 [1st Dept. 2003] ). Petitioner failed to submit such an application within one year of the completion date, as required by RPTL 421–a(16)(o)(i), and HPD rationally concluded that it did not have authority either to extend the deadline for submission of the application, or to grant a waiver of that deadline.
HPD also did not improvidently exercise its discretion by declining, prior to the date by which petitioner was required to submit its RPTL 421–a application, to waive the rule regarding the deadline for filing a notice of intent (see 28 RCNY 51–06[c] ). HPD rationally concluded that petitioner had delayed in submitting a notice of intent, and that such delay provided insufficient time for HPD's review and implementation of marketing. In any event, petitioner did not explicitly request such a waiver prior to the submission of its RPTL 421–a application, and HPD later granted petitioner a waiver after it asked for one and explained the reason for its delay.