The opinion
Central Hudson Assoc. LLC v New York State Div. of
Hous. & Community Renewal
2026 NY Slip Op 30825(U)
March 3, 2026
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 156530/2025
Judge: Phaedra Perry-Bond
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.1565302025.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX000_TO.html[03/16/2026 3:45:39 PM]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 156530/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. PHAEDRA F. PERRY PART 35
Justice
--------------------X INDEX NO. 156530/2025
CENTRAL HUDSON ASSOCIATES LLC
MOTION DATE 05/19/2025
Petitioner,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 001
-v-
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY RENEWAL,
DECISION + ORDER ON
MOTION
Respondent.
--------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001} 2, 7, 8
were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER}
Petitioner, Central Hudson Associates LLC (Petitioner/Owner) is the owner of the
building located at 570-574 West End Avenue, New York, NY (The Building). The Building is
subject to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (RSL) and the City Rent and Rehabilitation Law
(Rent Control Law). Petitioner seeks review pursuant to CPLR Article 78, of a DHCR order
dated March 19, 2025, in which DHCR's Deputy commissioner (The Commissioner) amended a
DHCR modification order by reducing the rents of the rent-regulated apartments at the Building.
For the reasons discussed, the Petition is denied..
BACKGROUND
On October 12, 2021, The Owner filed an application for modification of services
seeking permission to (1) convert the manually-operated freight elevator into an automatic
passenger elevator, (2) modify the trash disposal procedure, and (3) transition the porter into a
part-time doorman which the building did not previously have. Prior to the modification, the
tenants deposited their trash and recycling in bins next to the freight elevator where it was
156530/2025 CENTRAL HUDSON ASSOCIATES LLC vs. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF Page 1 of 6
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
Motion No. 001
[* 1] 1 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 156530/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2026
collected by the porter and brought to the basement for sorting. The modification required the
tenants transport their own garbage/recycling to a new area in the basement containing larger
bins for trash and recycling. In the application, The Owner stated this change would free up time
for the current porter to become a part-time doorman. The additional passenger elevator would
alleviate some of the burden on the two existing passenger elevators, and the new part-time
doorman would be able to check in guests and packages, increasing tenant safety and security.
On December 8, 2022, the Rent Administrator (RA) issued the Modification Order
granting the application in its entirety, at no change in rent, finding that the modification would
not be inconsistent with rent regulatory laws and regulations.
Various tenants objected to the modifications and filed petitions for administrative review
(P ARs) challenging the Modification Order alleging inter alia that the Modification Order
improperly granted The Owner's application and arguing they are now performing the duty of
the porter by bringing their garbage downstairs to the basement.
In an Order dated March 19, 2025, The Commissioner granted in part, the tenant's
appeal and amended the RA's Order to include a $5.00 permanent rent reduction for all affected
rent regulated tenants effective January 1, 2023. Petitioner subsequently filed the instant Petition
arguing that the Commissioner's amendment of the Modification Order considered arguments
that were not made in the PAR against the RA's Order and additionally DHCR lacked subject
matter jurisdiction to consider a PAR against an RA' s Order where the arguments contained in
the PAR were not made during the proceeding before the RA.
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKJ
156530/2025 CENTRAL HUDSON ASSOCIATES LLC vs. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF Page 2 of 6
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
Motion No. 001
[* 2] 2 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 156530/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2026
LEGAL ANALYSIS
In the context of Article 78 proceedings, courts have held that "a reviewing court is not
entitled to interfere in the exercise of discretion by an administrative agency unless there is no
rational basis for the exercise, or the action complained of is arbitrary and capricious." (Matter of
Soho Alliance v New York State Liquor Authority, 32 AD3d 363, [1st Dept 2006],citing to Matter
of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns ofScarsdale and
Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, (I 974)) ("[r]ationality is what is reviewed
under both the substantial evidence rule and the arbitrary and capricious standard."). "The
arbitrary or capricious test chiefly 'relates to whether a particular action should have been taken
or is justified ... and whether the administrative action is without foundation in fact.' Arbitrary
action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to facts." (Pell, 34
N.Y.2d at 231 (internal citations omitted)). Moreover, "[a]n agency's interpretation of its own
regulations is entitled to deference if that interpretation is not irrational or unreasonable [internal
quotation marks and citations omitted]." (Matter of JG Second Generation Partners Tr. P. v New
York State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal, Off of Rent Admin., IO NY3d 474, (2008).
Further, where an administrative determination necessitates an evaluation of the facts
within an administrative entity's area of expertise, the determination must be accorded great
weight and judicial deference (Nelson v. Roberts, 304 A.D.2d 20, 23 [1st Dep't 2003]; Flacke v.
Onondaga Landfill Systems, Inc., 69 N.Y.2d 355,363, [1987]). While judicial review must be
meaningful, it is not the role of the courts to weigh the desirability of any action or to choose
among alternatives (6 N. Y. Jur.2d Article 78 sec. 13). "The judicial function is at an end once it
has been determined that an agency's conclusion has a sound basis in reason" (6 N.Y. Jur.2d
Article 78 sec. 15).
156530/2025 CENTRAL HUDSON ASSOCIATES LLC vs. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF Page 3 of&
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
Motion No. 001
[* 3] 3 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 156530/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2026
The Petitioner argues that the modification constituted a substitution of required services
and not a decrease. Petitioner contends that the Commissioner properly conceded that the
Tenants did not raise certain arguments during the RA's proceeding, and that the RA properly
ruled that the newly asserted arguments in the PAR could not be considered. The Petitioner
further argues that because these arguments were not considered, DHCR lacked the subject
matter jurisdiction to decide their PARS rendering the PARs a nullity. Moreover, they argue that
the Commissioner acted in an ultra vires fashion and created an entire new proceeding de novo.
DHCR argues that DHCR shall determine what constitutes a required service and that
RSC §2527.8 provides that DHCR, on its own initiative, may issue an order or modify a prior
order which it finds was the result of irregularity in a vital matter. DHCR also argues that the
Commissioner's Order is in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and based
upon evidence in the record.
Section 2520.6 (r)(l) of the RSC defines required services as those services which the
owner maintained or was required to maintain on the applicable base date.
Rent Stabilization Code Section 2522.4(e) allows an owner to modify or substitute a
required service provided "such modification or substitution is not inconsistent with the [Rent
Stabilization Law] or Code." The test is whether there is an "adequate substitute" for the
modification of the service (Matter ofLite View LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. &
Community Renewal, 97 AD3d 105, [1st Dept. 2012]).
Section 2527.8 of the RSC permits DHCR, on application of either party, or on its own
initiative to issue a superseding order modifying or revoking any order issued by it where the
DHCR finds that such order was the result of inter alia, irregularity in vital matters.
156530/2025 CENTRAL HUDSON ASSOCIATES LLC vs. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF Page4of6
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
Motion No. 001
[* 4] 4 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 156530/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2026
In this case, The Commissioner carefully considered the entire record before determining
that a modification of the Rent Administrator's order was necessary to the extent the owner was
granted permission to modify the trash/recycling disposal procedure, and that the modification
constituted a decrease in services warranting a permanent reduction in rent. The Commissioner
precluded two of the tenants, (Chase and Alper) from raising any issues concerning the RA's
Order and additionally noted that tenant Weldon, who responded, failed to make specific
complaints opposing the proposed modifications. The Commissioner found that since the tenants
failed to raise any specific objections to the quality or adequacy of the proposed modifications
during the pendency of the RA's proceeding, the issues would not be considered by The
Commissioner. However, The Commissioner noted that Section 2527.8 of the RSC permitted
DHCR on application of either party, or on its own initiative to issue a superseding order
modifying or revoking any order issued where the DHCR finds that such order was the result of
inter alia, irregularity in vital matters. The Commissioner found that past precedents dictated a
rent reduction was warranted.
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
156530/2025 CENTRAL HUDSON ASSOCIATES LLC vs. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF Page 5of6
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
Motion No. 001
[* 5] 5 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 156530/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2026
Based on these facts, this Court finds that the Deputy Commissioner's Order was rational
and was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
Accordingly, it is
rntiQ y 12li_
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner's request for relief under Article 78 of the
CP:;~~~ Md tlre P~tion is ilifilms~ in i~
DATE HON. PHAEDRA PERRY-BOND, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: x CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED ~ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□
156530/2025 CENTRAL HUDSON ASSOCIATES LLC vs. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF Page& of 6
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
Motion No. 001
[* 6] 6 of 6