Narrative Opinion Summary
In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner sought to review a determination by the New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal, which affirmed an order from the District Rent Administrator adjusting the initial legal regulated rent for the premises. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, stating that the respondent's determination of fair market rent was not arbitrary or capricious. The petitioner failed to provide appropriate comparables despite being given the opportunity, leading the agency to rely on special rent guidelines under the Rent Stabilization Law. Additional arguments presented by the petitioner were found to lack merit. The decision was concurred by Justices Bracken, Sullivan, Santucci, and Altman.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal of Additional Argumentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found that the additional arguments presented by the petitioner were without merit and did not warrant overturning the decision.
Reasoning: Additional arguments presented by the petitioner were found to lack merit.
Fair Market Rent Determinationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The agency's reliance on special rent guidelines under the Rent Stabilization Law was upheld due to the petitioner's failure to provide appropriate comparables.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to provide appropriate comparables despite being given the opportunity, leading the agency to rely on special rent guidelines under the Rent Stabilization Law.
Judicial Review under CPLR Article 78subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviewed the determination made by the New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal, evaluating whether the decision was arbitrary or capricious.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the judgment, stating that the respondent's determination of fair market rent was not arbitrary or capricious.