Matter of Connors v New York City Loft Bd.

Matter of Connors v New York City Loft Bd. 2008 NY Slip Op 10217 [57 AD3d 447] December 30, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009

In the Matter of William A. Connors et al., Petitioners,
v
New York City Loft Board, Respondent.

—[*1] William A. Connors and Susan Byrne, petitioners pro se.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julie Steiner of counsel), for respondent.

Determinations of respondent New York City Loft Board, dated January 19 and July 20, 2006, which (1) adopted, with minor modifications, the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denying all but one of petitioners' numerous allegations of unreasonable interference by the owner with petitioners' use of their apartment (29 RCNY 2-01 [h]), denying petitioners' claim of an intent on the part of the owner to harass (29 RCNY 2-02 [b]), and declining to impose civil penalties against the owner, and (2) accepted the report and recommendation of respondent's Executive Director denying petitioners' application for reconsideration, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Eileen A. Rakower, J.], entered October 12, 2007), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent's findings are supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 230-231 [1974]). Indeed, rather than showing unreasonable interference by the owner, the record shows that petitioners sought at every juncture to obstruct and delay the legalization work that the owner had undertaken (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 284; 29 RCNY 2-01). No basis exists to disturb respondent's decision not to impose a fine for the single sustained allegation of unreasonable interference (cf. 29 RCNY 2-01 [h]), which the ALJ described as a [*2]"relatively minor" matter that the owner was willing to correct, or the ALJ's findings of credibility. We have considered petitioners' other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.