Matter of Echevarria v Wambua

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Echevarria v Wambua 2013 NY Slip Op 32150(U) September 10, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 102688/12 Judge: Peter Moulton Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON 911212013 [* 1] , - SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY L H3N. PEEiR H.MOULTON SUPREME COURT JUSTIc& PRESENT: PART qa ?. Justice - Index Number: 103396/2012 ECHEVARRIA, ALICIA INDEX NO. VS. MOTION DATE WAMBUA, MATTHEW M. SEQUENCE NUMBER : 002 MOTION SEQ. NO. REARGUMENTlRECONSlDERATlON The following papers, numbered 1 to ,were read on this motion tolfor Notice of MotionlOrder to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits Answering Affidavits - Exhibits Replying Affidavits IW s ) . IW s ) . IW s ) . Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is Dated: 1. CHECK ONE: q,//3 0/ I B e d - ..................................................................... 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOT18N IS: ................................................ d 0 CASE DISPOSED GRANTED 0SETTLE ORDER DO NOT POST ,J.S.C. 0 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION DENIED GRANTED IN PART 0OTHER 0SUBMIT ORDER 0FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0REFERENCE [* 2] ALICIA ECHEVARRIA Petitioner, For a Judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, -against- Index No. 102688/12 MATTHEW M. WAMBUA, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEP'T OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT; EAST MIDTOWN PLAZA HOUSING CO.; MARK ANDERMANIS and SANDRA ANDERMANIS, 1 rI ! FILED SEP 12 2013 Respondents. ...................................... X ! , 1 YOWK U w C E R I C s (3mfe Peter H. Moulton, Justice Respondent East Midtown Plaza Housing Company moves to reargue this court's decision dated April 22, 2013 ("April 22nddecision"). Petitioner Alicia Echevarria and respondents Mark and Sandra Andermanis are shareholders in a Mitchell-Lama cooperative complex located in Manhattan. Echevarria brought this Article 78 proceeding to annul the assignment of a four bedroom apartment to the Andermanises by respondents East Midtown Plaza Housing Company ("East Midtown") and the City's Department of Housing Preservation and Development ("HPD") . Petitioner sought the eviction of the Andermanis family from the apartment and the implementation of a 1 [* 3] process to ensure that the apartment be awarded according to HPD's rules governing internal apartment transfers within a single Mitchell Lama development. HPD cross-moved for a remand to the agency so that it could rescind the determination challenged herein, i.e. the assignment of the apartment to the Andermanises and proceed to assign the apartment in accordance with its own rules. East Midtown moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Echevarria did not have standing because she would not have gotten the apartment even had the Andermanises not been assigned the apartment. This motion was joined by the Andermanises. In the April 22nd decision, familiarity with which is assumed, this court granted the petition to the extent .of remanding the matter to HPD. DISCUSSION In the instant motion East Midtown first argues that the court erred in finding that petitioner had standing to bring this action. East Midtown simply repeats its prior argument, and makes no attempt to grapple with the authority cited by the court that demonstrates that Echevarria does have standing. As held in the April 22"d decision: [flor standing purposes, it is sufficient that the award of apartment 6D was given to an applicant outside of the chronological order set forth in HPD rules governing waiting 2 [* 4] lists. For example, in Matter of Burke v Suuarman (35 NY2d 39) persons eligible for appointment off a civil service list were found to have standing to challenge illegal appointments, irrespective of the petitioners position on the list. Eligibility, and not certainty, of appointment [is] sufficient to confer standing. (Matter of New York State Ass n of Communitv Action Aaencv Board Members v Shaffer, 119 AD2d 871.) East Midtown s papers are bereft of argument or authority that could undermine this holding. East Midtown s second argument is that it should have been given a chance to answer the petition after the court denied its motion to dismiss. East Midtown avers that it has arguments that were not considered on the motion to dismiss, which was focused on the issue of standing. However, it does not state what those arguments could be. In the normal course, a respondent is given the opportunity to answer the petition after losing a pre-answer motion to dismiss. However, the court has the discretion to not wait for an answer before taking action. motion for a remand. East Midtown did not oppose HPD s crossMore importantly, the central, dispositive fact in this proceeding is not in dispute: the apartment was awarded to the Andermanises in derogation of HPD s rules. (& Intermor v Board of Trustees of Incorporated Villaqe of Malverne, 286 AD2d 330.) East Midtown offers nothing in the instant motion that tends to contradict that fact. There is no reason to delay a remand of the matter to the agency decision maker, where, as here, 3 [* 5] e . the agency has determined that its decision was made in derogation of its own rules and procedures. As the agency charged with fairly allocating apartments according to those rules, HPD is not barred, by correcting an error. estoppel in (Matter of New York State Med. Transporters Ass'n v Perales, 77 NY2d 126, 130.) This is true even where there are "harsh results." York -I (Matter of Parkview Associates v City of New 71 NY2d 2 7 4 , 282, cert denied 488 US 801. The court noted in the April 22nd decision that HPD's initial error has had serious consequences for the Andermanises. They have expended funds in renovating the apartment. However, the question of whether they are entitled to compensation from their corespondents for, inter alia, the amounts that they expended in renovation is not before the court on this Article 78 proceeding. For the reasons stated the motion is denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. DATED: September 10, 2013 FILE SEP 12 2015 4

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.