Matter of Sanders v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal

Matter of Sanders v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal 2007 NY Slip Op 04349 [40 AD3d 440] May 22, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, July 11, 2007

In the Matter of Steven Sanders, as Assembly Member, et al., Appellants,
v
State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Jack L. Lester, New York, for appellants.

Gary R. Connor, New York (Sandra A. Joseph of counsel) for Division of Housing and Community Renewal, respondent.

Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), for PCV ST Owner LP, respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered June 26, 2006, dismissing this proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, challenging an upward modification to a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The only contention pressed on behalf of the tenants on this appeal is that the Division of Housing and Community Renewal improperly approved the MCI increase without requiring the owners to provide detailed evidence distinguishing rewiring work (for which the MCI increase was sought) from the non-MCI cable telecom work performed by the same contractor. The owners produced their contract with the installation contractor and a separate contract between the cable telecom licensee and the contractor. The owners consistently responded to the agency's inquiries concerning income from the cable telecom licensee and what the subcontractors were being paid. The agency itself opted not to seek documents showing individual tasks (cf. Matter of Maxwell-Kates, Inc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 196 AD2d 456, 457-458 [1993]). The only question before the article 78 court was whether there was a rational basis for the agency's [*2]decision (see Matter of Rodriguez-Rivera v Kelly, 2 NY3d 776 [2004]). Having found that there was, the court properly declared the inquiry at an end. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli, McGuire, JJ.