Matter of Mapama Corp. v New York City Loft Bd.

Matter of Matter of Mapama Corp. v New York City Loft Bd. 2012 NY Slip Op 04227 Decided on May 31, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 31, 2012
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta, JJ.
7819 112602/10

[*1]In re Mapama Corp., Petitioner-Appellant,

v

The New York City Loft Board, et al. Respondents-Respondents, Margarete Roeder, et al, Respondents.




Peluso & Touger, LLP, New York (Pei Pei Cheng of counsel),
for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B.
Morris of counsel), for The New York City Loft Board,
respondent.
Robert Newmann, respondent pro se.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered March 16, 2011, denying the petition to annul respondent New York City Loft Board's determination, dated May 20, 2010, which denied petitioner's application for an extension of time to legalize loft units for residential occupancy, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent's determination had a rational basis. The request petitioner made before the deadline expired contained numerous procedural defects pursuant to 29 RCNY 2-01(b), including petitioner's failure to complete the application form prescribed by respondent (subd [b][4]). Moreover, the application it made thereafter, although submitted on the proper form, was untimely, since it was filed in December 2009, long after the May 1, 2007 deadline it sought to extend (29 RCNY 2-01[b][1]). The parties' stipulation of settlement required petitioner, if it applied for an extension, to comply with 29 RCNY 2-01(b). Contrary to petitioner's argument, [*2]the December 2009 application did not constitute an amendment to an extension application pursuant to 29 RCNY 2-01(b)(4), since there was no application pending when it was made.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 31, 2012

CLERK