Opinion
2016–09481 Index No. 11928/15
02-07-2018
In the Matter of NAPA PARTNERS, LLC, petitioner-respondent, v. DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, appellant, et al., respondent.
Mark F. Palomino, New York, N.Y. (Christina S. Ossi of counsel), for appellant. Golino Law Group, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Santo Golino of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Mark F. Palomino, New York, N.Y. (Christina S. Ossi of counsel), for appellant.
Golino Law Group, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Santo Golino of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER 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 dated August 4, 2015, which denied a petition for administrative review and affirmed a Rent Administrator's determination that a rent overcharge had occurred, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Raffaele, J.), entered June 29, 2016, which granted the petition, annulled the determination dated August 4, 2015, and remitted the matter to the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal for further proceedings.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.
In a determination dated August 4, 2015, the Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Department of Housing and Community Renewal concluded that a Rent Administrator had properly taken into account rent reduction orders dated October 9, 1996, and July 7, 1997, in determining a tenant's complaint regarding a rent overcharge. The landlord commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the Deputy Commissioner's determination.
The Deputy Commissioner's determination was not made in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see CPLR 7803[3] ; Scott v. Rockaway Pratt, LLC , 17 N.Y.3d 739, 740, 929 N.Y.S.2d 204, 953 N.E.2d 277 ; Matter of Cintron v. Calogero , 15 N.Y.3d 347, 355–356, 912 N.Y.S.2d 498, 938 N.E.2d 931 ; Matter of JP & Assoc. Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 122 A.D.3d 740, 741, 996 N.Y.S.2d 643 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
RIVERA, J.P., HALL, ROMAN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.