Matter of canty v 146 Fifth Ave. LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of canty v 146 Fifth Ave. LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 31662(U) June 18, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 400488/12 Judge: Donna M. Mills Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SCANNED ON 612212012 SUPKEME COURT OF Tllli: STATE OF NEW YORK- NICW Y W COUNTY O MOTIONT>A'I'E--- Petitio iicr, -V- MOTIONSEQ.N o , 00 I Mol I O N CAI,No.- I~espondent s. - - __ - . . . . 'I'lic following papers, numbered 1 to wcrc read on this molioii for PAPERS NUMBEKUL) Notice of Motion/Ordcr to Show Cause-Allidavits- Exhibits .... 1 [* 2] S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE S T A T E O F NEW YORK COUNTY O F NEW Y O R K : I A S P A R T 5 8 In tlic M a t t f r of T A N J I CANTY, t h e A p p l i c a t i o n of Petitioner, Index N o . : 400488/2012 For a Judgment u n d e r A r t i c l e 7 8 of t.1i.e Civil P r a c t i c e L a w and R u l e s -agai.nst146 P I P I ' H AVENUE LLC, NEW YOKK STATF TITVTSTON OF HOUSTNG AND COMMUNL'YY RENEWAL and ATTORNEY GENERAT, , DONNA MILLS, J . : I n L l i i s A r L i c l e '18 proceedlirig , p e t i t - i o n c r T a n j i C a r i L y , act-irig p r o se, s e e k s a judgment r e v e r s i n g and a n n u l l i n g t h e J a n u a r y 11, 2 0 1 2 d e t e r m i n a t i o n of r e s p o n d e n t the N e w Y o r k State D i v i s i o n of Housing and Commuiiity R e n e w a l ( D H C R ) whi.c:h d e n i e d pe t i t i one I-' s r e n t ovcr-c:lia rge c oinp 1 inL . a M o t i on se quenc e riurnbe r 001 c(.)lit.ain:; p e t i t i o n e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r r e l i e f or1 t h i s i n a t L e ~ . 001, i s p e t i - t i o n e r ' r ; order t o show c a u s ~ ! e e k i n g a stay of h e r s e v i c t i o n , pendi-ng t.he outcome of motion sequence number 001. BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Petitioner is a t e n a n t 1.n a r e n t c o n t r o l l c d apartment. loeatcd at 146 F i f t h Avenue, New Y o i - I C , Ncw Y r . and owned by ol: d e f e n d a n t 146 k ' i f t h Avenue, TITJC ( O w n e r ) . 1 On J u l y 24, 2 0 O H , [* 3] p e t i t - ioneJ- fi .1.ed a "tenant's complairlt" w r i . t h DHCK'S O f f i c e of Kent. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a l l e g i n g t . h a t she w a s beiriq cl-iai-ged too much f o r rent. s p c c i f i c a l l y , p e t i t i o n e r niai n t a i n c d t h a t t h e Maximum Base Rent (MBR) had been i m p r o p e r l y ca 1 c u l a t e d , 1eavj.ng her w i t h a c!ur-rent rriont.lily rate of- $4'/6.26 per month. She al.:;o wrote ill her coinp I ai.rit t h a t lie?- rent. had been unjustly j.ncr-eased i n 1994, and c o n t i n u e d t o be iinj L i s t . ly i n c r e a s e d t h e r e a f t - e r . ITer comp1.aint n o t e d t h a t s h e had a l s o f i l e d o t h e r o v e r c h a r g e c o m p l a i n t s w i t h t h e DIICR. P e t i t i o n e r c l a i m e d t h a t she n e v e r r e c e i v e d c e r t a i n m a l i c e s of h e r rent. iricr-cases, t h e r e f h i s rigl1t.s to collect. x i i n c r e a s e . '' ore I t h e " l a n d l o r d waived DHCR's Exhibit A - 1 , at 4 . Pet.it.j.oner- d i d not: a].lege that t h e apartment needed r e p a i r s . According t o t h e "Rent Fact S h e e t , I ' p r o v i d e d i n t h e r e c o r d by DHCR and located on the D H C R ' s w e b s i t e , the MRR i s c a l c u l a t e d f o r r e n t c o n k r o l l e d a p a r t m e n t s t a k i n g i n t o corisj.deration " r e a l c s t a t-e taxes, wateu: arid sewer c h a r g e s I o p e r a t i n q arid maintenance expenses . . . The [ M H H ] is updated e v c r y t w o year:; b-y a f a c t - o r t h a t i n c o r p o r a t e s changes i n t h c s e o p e r a t i n g costs . I ' Answer, E x h i b i t C. However, t h e MBK i s n o t w h a t t h e landlord f r o m t h e tenant. j.s UHCR's c o l l e c t e d by The MBR d e t e r m i n e s t h e Maximum C o l l e c t e d Kent. (MCR) , which i s g e n e r a l l y l e s s t.11a.n t h e M R R . A s set. f o r t h by D H C X , involves niii I tiple steps. Id. t h e p r o c e s s to c1btai.n an MBR i n c r e a s e liri hi.2 a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an MBR k'irst, i n c r e a s e , t h e o w i - i e r ruust c e r t i f y t h a t , aiiioriy o t h e r t h i n g s , a l l rent , i m p a i r i n g v i o l a t i o n s a r e c o r r e c t e d . order- i n c r e a s i n g the MBR, nHCR w i l l then i . s s u c a n and t h e n a d j Listing t h e MCR. 2 [* 4] Teiiants can challenge the MUR i n c r e a s e by f i l i n g an ovei-charqe comp I . a i n t f o r m , as p e t i t i o n e r did. Adrrij nist.7-ator-s then i n v e s t i g a t e t h e challenge. Rent Tenants a r e a l s c ) allowed, in acidj-tion, t.o file separate complaint::: t o I3HCK a l l e y i r i y t h a t t.lw 1 a . n d l o r d f a i l , e d t o make c e r t a i n repairs. DIICR. i s empowered t o f i n d a r-ent decrease based on a d e c r e a s e in e s s e n t i a l ser-vices. This dec:rease i s i.tz p l a c e u n t i l the c o n d i t i o n i.s a b a t e d . C'it.y of New Y O I - k 5 See g e n e r . a l l y AdminisL.rative Code o f t-he 26-405 ( I c n o w n a s t h e Hcnt. ('oritrol. Law [RCL] . 1 T n Decentber. 2 0 0 8 , t h e K e n t A d m i n i s t r a t o r i s s u e d a11 o r d e r c a l c u l a t i n g t h a t the MCK on p e t i t i o n e r ' s apartment. should he $219.23 per month, e f f e u t i - v e January 1, 2 0 0 8 . The ordel: rioted t h a t t.he1-e had already been approval for MER i.ncreascs i n 2004 arid 2 0 0 5 , siihjec:t to a di fferel-it o r d c r . Tn :!009, the Owiicir f i l e d a p e t i t - i o n for a d m i n i s t . r a t i v e review. A l s o i n 2009, the O w n c r ' s p e t i t i o n was d e n i e d . I n 2 0 0 3 , t h e O W I - I ~ I -commenced an A r t . j . c l . e '78 p r o c e e d i n g cha.1 I.enqir-ig t h e DI-ICR Commissioner's d e t e r m i n a t i o n , UHCR and the Owner tlieri s t i p u l a t e d to have thc proc:eeding remanded t o the (?ornniissioiiei-of DTICIR for, f ~ i r - t h e i revi.ew. E)ct:it.:i.orier-was m a i l e d a copy of t h e A r t i c l e '78 pcti tioi-1 and a d v i s e d t h a t she could submit a reply. She did not. r e s p o n d . O n J a n u a r y 1 , 201.2, D H C R ' s Commissioner issued an order1 a p p r o v i n g the O w n e r ' s c:al.culatioris, s t a t i n g t h a t t h e MCR should be i n c r e a s e d t o $476.26 pel- month. The Commj s s i o n e r f o u n d L h a t the : ; t a t : u t o x . y I o r i n u l a a l l . o w e d for- a MBK of $1.,219.31 e r rr1ont.h as p 3 [* 5] of Jaiiuary I., :?008. The Commissioner a l s o iridi c a t e d t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e s t a t u t o r y ¬ormu1 a , t h e Owner sl-iciuld be e n t i t l e d t o c o l l e c t . an i n c r e a s e d r e n t e v e r y year t h r o u g h 2011. The Coinrriissiorler a i - r i v e d a t h i s d c c i s i on by 1-evjewiriq t-he rent r e c o r d s s i r i c e 1 9 7 2 and t a k i n g i n t o account: t h e M B R i n c r e a s e s siric!c 1934 . 'i'he C o m r n i s s i oner found t h a t , amoriy o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e O w n e l - wa:; e n L i t l e d t o e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f and t h a t t h e apart.ment war; I oc!atetl i r l a n l l a r c a in Manhattan whcre rent:; for apar-t-.rnellts comparable to the subjec!t apartrnerlt a r e s u b s t a r l t . i a l l y h i g h e r t h a n the r e n t which t h e sub] e c t landlord was c o l - l e c t i n 9 from t h e subject tenant. . . . TTI March 2 0 1 2 , D H C K ' s Exhibi-t. C - 3 . 3 , , at 3 . p e t i t - i o n e r c!ommericed t h i s A r t i c l e 7 8 pi-oreedii-iy, c l i a l l e n g i n q the UHCK C'orrirnissione~.':;January 11, 2012 f i 1-iding. Lr-i h e r peLi t i o n , she argues t h a t t tie D H C R ' s which approved a n M E R , were made i n crror. f iridings , She a l s o c l a i m s t h a t . she has s u f f e r e d a "trernendous d e c r e a s e i n s e r v i c e s " and that t h e r e n t s have sl-iown a "steady i.ncrea:;e" t l - i r o u q h o u t t h e years . Amended V e r i f i e d Petit-ion, a t 1. Iii t.he r e c o r d , t-here i s an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r - r e r i C r'eductiori, dated. Febn1a.x-y 2 2 , 2012, t h a t p e t i t i o n e r fi l e d w i t h DHCR, a l l e g i n g t h a t she s h o u l d be entj.tl.ed. t o a r e n t r c d u c t i o r i based on a decrease i n s e r v i c e s . ::uc:h P e t i t i o n e r l i s t e d cert.ai.71 c o n d i t i o n s a s moldy kitc-.lieri c a b i n e t s , which she b e l i e v e d wou I d e n t i t l e her. to a r e n t 1 . e d u c t i o r i . O M a y 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 , DIICR i . s s u e d a det.ermiriatioli denying anot-lier n one of p e t i t i o n e r ' s a p p l i c a t i , o n for r e n t r e d u c t i o n , w h i c h was 4 [* 6] dat.ed Mar-ch 5 , 2 0 1 2 . I n i t s d e c i s i o n , DT3C::R w r o t e that. it had irispec:t.ed t h e apartmeiit arid revj.ewed t h e r-ecord. DI-ICR a l s o informed p e t i t i o n e r t h a t she i s e n t i t l e d t o appeal i t s May 3 0 , 201 :! d e c i s i o n . . nori-payriient pr-oceedir-iq took p l a c e i n Housing Chur-L oil May 2 2 , 2 0 1 2 , whereby t h e Honorable Michelle D . Schr-eiher denied p e t i t i c i r i e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r a stay of the e v i c t i o n . P e t i t i o n e r bi-ought an order t o show c : d i . i s e , w i t h this cour't, s e e k i n g a sLay of t.hc evi.ct.i.on p e n d i n g t h e o u t c o i n c o f h e r Ilrtic!le 7 8 prnc:eedj.ng. On May 23, 2 0 1 2 , p e t i t i o n e r was g r a n t e d a temporary s t a y of t.he e v i c t i o n by t h i s c o u r t . DISCUSSION In Llle c o r i t e x t of an A r t i c l e 7 8 proc:ccdirig, c o u r t ' s have held t h a t "a revi-ewirig c : o u r t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o i r i l e r ' f c r c i n t h e exercise of d i s c r e t i o n b y an adrninis trativc agency u n l e s s the]-e is no r a t i o n a l b a s i s for the e x e r c i s e , of i s a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s . ' ! 01- t h e a c t i o n complained M a t t e r o' Solio A l l i a r i c e v N e w f Yo~k St:aL.e L i q u o r A u t h o r i t y , 3 2 AD3d 3 6 3 , 3 6 3 (I?,'. Dept 2 0 0 6 ) , citir-icj to M a t t e i - of Peli v B o a i - d of E d u c . nf l l n i o i z F r e e School Dist. No. 1 of l ' o w n s of Sc:ar.sdaie a n d Mamaroneck, W e s t c h e s t e l Courity, -34 N Y 7 d 222 (1374); see C P L R 7 8 0 3 ( 3 ) . "The arbitrary arid c a p r i c i o u s s t a n d a r d a s k s whether t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n in q u e s t i o n had a r a t . i o n a l b a s i s [ i n t e r n a l qu0tat.j 011 m a r k s and 5 [* 7] L i m o u s i n e C o i i u n i s s i o n , 49 AD3d 316, 317 (1"'. Dept 2008). The J a n u a r y 11, 2012 d c t c r m i n a t i o n from UHCR f u l l y addressed whethe'.l- 01: n o t t.hc MRR incr-.ease w a s proper.. DHCX :;et f o r t h . i t s rcasoni nq foi- a p p r c v i n g the i n c r e a s e , w h i c h iric!1 udetl, a n o n 9 o t h e r . t-liings , I.oolring at. t.he st a t u t o r - y f o r n i u l a and t h e p r i o r MBR i n c r e a s e s , e q u i t a b l e re:] e f f o r the l a n d l o r d and t h e comparison i of the r e n t . of t h e apart-ment t~oo t h e r compai-able o n e s . A s such, t h e court. f i r i d s t h a t thc DIICR has set. forth a r-aL.ion;l1 determination and it. w i l l not be d i s t u r b e d aL t h i s t i r n e . Mor-eovex--, La] 11 agency's i n t c r - p r - e t a . t ion of i t s o w n regulat-ions i s e n t i t - l e d t o deference i f that i n t e r p r - e t a t i o n i s not i r r a t i o n a l o r unreasonable cit.at.ioris o m i t t e d ] . I' M a t t e l - of IG Secund G e n e r a t i o n Partrier's T,. P . v N e w Y o ? - k S t a t e Div. of of Reiii? A d i n i n . , [internal q u o t a t i o n marks and Hoi.1~. arid C'orrununity R e n e w a l , 10 NY3d 4'74, 481 (2008). Off. As set. t o r t h by M d t t e r - of Llrcr~nan v N e w Yo1-k S t a t e Div. of 1Ior.i~.& Clonunur.li t:y R e r i e w a l (30 AD3d 281, 282-28:) [ I s tDept 20061 ) , [ t l h e p r o c e d u r e s used by U H C H in reviewing MBR i n c r e a s e a p p l i c a t i o n s a r e l o n g s t a n d i n y and h a v e 2 beeii approved by L h i s C o u r t . . det-erminat-ion w i l l iiok IE 'I A c c o r , d i n y l y , D H C R ' s MBK s e t asidc. P e t i t i o n e r now c:l.aims t h a t t h e MBR shou1.d n o t be increased since she has e x p e r i e n c e d a d e c r e a s e in se7-vi.ce:;. h e r o r i g i n a l c:omp 1 a i . n t , which w a s t h e b a s i c; Howcvei-, in of t h e J-anuary 1 , 1 2 0 1 2 detrermii-lation, p e t i t i o n e r only a 1.1eged t h a t MBK amounts were i i i c o r i - e c k l y ca1c:ulate.d. S i n c e t h e a H e q a t i o n by p e t i t i o n e r of a decrease i n sei-vice:; w a s not i n c l u d e d j n t h e o r i q i r i a l recoi-d 6 [* 8] bcfore t.lic DHCK, i t . cannot I-,c considered a t t h i s time. It. is [j]u d i c i a l r e v i e w of adinir-ii:;t-rative wcll r ; c ? t L l e d t h a t . deternii.riations i s conf iried t o t h e facts a n d record adduced before t h e aljency [ i n t e r n a l quotclt j.on marks and c i t a t i o n omit-tedl . I' Matter- of' R i z z o v N e w York S t a t e D i v i s i o r ? of H o i i s i i - i g 6- C o n l n i L i n i t y R e 1 i ~ w a . 1 G NY3d 1 0 4 , 110 (2005). , P e t i t ione7- a d d i L i o n a l l y Lr-ied t o c:l-iai~Lennyethe p r i o r . y e a r s ' MBIi i~ C T C ~ ~ S011 S C petition. both her 2 0 0 8 complaint arid her c u r r e n t I I o w e v e r - , p e t i t i o n e r rni-ssed hcr statute of Limi t a t i o n : ; c h a l l e n g i n g t h e p r i o r y e a r s ' i n c r e a s e s , a.nd s h e may r o c h a l l e n g e it them at. t.his time. For i n s t - a n c e , s h e cl-iallenges ai1 MER increase fr-cm 1934, which was issued t.o hci- in 1 9 9 4 . petiti OT~EIY' cxplairied that s h e liad 3 3 d a y s t o c h a l l e n g e t.liis i n c r e a s e frorn t h e n o t i c e of such i n c r e a s e . B-2. The notice t o See D H C K ' s E x h i b i t S h e can no 1,origer c h a l l e n g e t h e past. y e a r s ' MBK i n c r e a s e s . The record i n d i c a t e s t h a t p e t i t i o n e r has a l s o f i l e d at. l e a s t two s e p a l - a t e c o m p l a i n t s , dated a f t e r the J a n u a r y 11, 2012 deterrnir-lation, c h a l l e n g i n g her r e n t i n c r e a s e . She c l a i m s t h a t she has e x p e r i e n c c d a d e c r e a s e i n sel-vi.ces i n 1iot.l-i of h e r cornplaint:.;. A p p a r e n t l y at lcast one of t h e coinpl a i t i t s has been i n v e s t i g a t e d by t h e UHCR and p e t i t i o n e r w a s d e n i e d r e l i e f . P e t - i t i o r i e r was informed mi t h e d e n i a l that s h e was e n t i t 3 . e d t o seek an appeal o f ' t h a t d e t e r m i n a L i i n . "'onc who o b j c c i t s i ~ c he t act. of a i Tt. i s well. s e t t l e d t h a t admi nri.r;t.rativc agency rnust exhaust avai l a b l c a d m i n i s t r a t i v e reruedies b e f o r e b e i n g per-mittcd to litigate ]Ti a c o u r t of law.'" Mattel- of Ford v ~ n ~ ~ s h a275 , ll 7 [* 9] AD2d 4 3 3 , 4 3 4 ( 3 d Dept. 2 0 0 0 ) , qu,otirig Watyergate 11 Aprai:tnients v B u f f a l o Sewe.r- A u t : h o r - i t y , 46 N Y 2 d 5 2 , 57 (1378). A:; r;uc:h, since p e t i t i o n e r h a s n o t exhausted h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies w i t h r e s p e c t . to her cornplaints made a f t e r t h e J a n u a r y 11, 201.2 deter-mi n a t . i i o n , s h e i s ~ i i i a h l et.o sccli t h e c:ourt's -r:evicw of these complai ~1ti.s t t h i s t i m e . a P e t i t l o n e r has b r o u g h t a r e l a t e d order t o ..;how cause s e e k i n g a s t a y n ¬ her e v i c t i o n pending t h e outcome of t h e A r t i c l e ' 7 6 challenge t o t h e D H C R ' s January 11, 2 0 1 % cictcrminatiori. As a r c s ~ i l L(if t h i s d e c i s j o n , t h e J a n u a r y 11, 2 0 1 2 t 3 e t e r i n i r i a t ~ o nh a s k~een uplield and the p e t i t i onel^ w a s deni c!d relief . Accordi-ngly, s i n c e t h c p e t i t i o n h a s . been denied arid t h e p r o c e e d i n g d i s m i s s e d , petitioner j.2 a l s o d e n i e d a f u r t h e r s t a y of her. e v i . c t i o n . The Att.ori1e.y- G e n e r a l is N o t a P r o p e r P a r t y : . - P e L i t i o n e r s e r v e d the New York S t a t e Attorney General ( A t t o r n e y General) w i t h hci- A i - t i c l e 7 8 p e t i t i o n arid h c r o r d e r L o show c a i i s ~f o x - a s t . a y 011 the eviuliol-1. The! A L t . o r n e y General is not, an agency i n v o l v e d i n any of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s and seek:; d i s m i s s a l of t-he action I T h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t.lie A t tor-1-ley General i s riot a p r o p e r p a r t - y and the p e t i t i . o n i s d i s m i s s e d as a g a i i i s t i t.. CONCLUSION A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s her-eby ADJUDGED L.l-iat. t-lie p e t i t i o n i s d e n i e d a r i d th.c pr-oueediny i s d i s m i s s e d ; and i t i . s f u r t h e r ORDERED L.liat t h e order t o show c a u s e s e e k i n g a stay of 8 the [* 10] , . . , e v i c t i o n p e n d i n g t h e outcome of the Article '78 p e t i t i o n is denied arid the s t - a y i: lifted. : Dated : J .S . (1. OONNA M. MILLS, 3S.C. 9

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.