Matter of Breslin Tenant Assn. v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of N.Y.

Matter of Breslin Tenant Assn. v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of N.Y. 2009 NY Slip Op 08460 [67 AD3d 522] November 17, 2009 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 6, 2010

In the Matter of Breslin Tenant Association et al., Petitioners,
v
Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Manhattan Legal Services, New York (Susan M. Cohen of counsel), for petitioners.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for municipal respondents.

Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Kara I. Schechter-Rakowski of counsel), for Edward Haddad; Broadway Breslin Associates, LLC; 1186 Broadway, LLC; 1186 Broadway Tenant LLC and GFI Management Services, Inc., respondents.

Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, dated August 20, 2007, granting respondent hotel owner's application for a certificate of no harassment (Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-107.4 [3.1] [former § 27-198 (b) (1) (b)]), unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 by petitioner tenant association, transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered June 2, 2008, dismissed, without costs.

The finding that respondent hotel did not engage in conduct that harassed or was intended to harass any single room occupancy tenant within the meaning of Administrative Code § 27-2093 is supported by substantial evidence showing, inter alia, that essential services were maintained on an ongoing basis, that the hotel's management took prompt steps to correct maintenance problems as they arose, and that the violations against the hotel were all recent, nonhazardous, and largely [*2]corrected by the time of the hearing. No basis exists to disturb the hearing officer's findings of credibility (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.