The opinion
Matter of 10 W. 65th St. Tenants Assn. v New York
State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
2024 NY Slip Op 30005(U)
January 2, 2024
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 154859/2023
Judge: Shahabuddeen Ally
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.
INDEX NO. 154859/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. SHAHABUDDEEN ABID ALLY PART 16TR
Justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 154859/2023
In the Matter of the Application of MOTION DATE 9/11/2023
10 WEST 55rH STREET TENANTS ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001
- V-
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND DECISION + ORDER ON
COMMUNITY RENEWAL and 10 WEST 55TH STREET LLC, MOTION
Respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSC~F document number (Motion 001) 1-33
were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)
Petitioner brings this Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the administrative
determination made by respondent the New York State Division of Housing and Community
Renewal ("DHCR") dated March 31, 2023 ("Challenged Order") on the grounds that it was
arbitrary and capricious and lacked a rational basis in fact and law. Respondents oppose. Upon
the above cited papers and for the reasons set forth below, the petition is denied and this
proceeding is dismissed.
Background
Petitioner is an unincorporated, voluntary association of the tenants residing in the rent
stabilized and rent controlled apartments at IO West 65 th Street, New York NY (the "Premises").
Respondent IO West 65 th Street LLC ("Owner") is the owner of the Premises. The apartments
located at the Premises are governed by the Rent Stabilization Law, the Rent Stabilization Code,
154859/2023 10 WEST 65TH STREET TENANTS ASSOCIATION v NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF Page 1 of 6
HOUSING AND COMMMUNITY RENEWAL et al
Motion No. 001
[* 1] 1 of 6
INDEX NO. 154859/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024
and related other City provisions and regulations. Respondent DHCR is the agency charged with
the administration and enforcement of the relevant laws and regulations.
In April 2011, Owner filed an application for a Major Capital Improvement ("MCI")
increase for the installation of a new boiler, security system, intercom, and fencing. Petitioner
opposed the application, contending that the boiler had been installed more than two years prior
to the application and that the intercom did not function. Petitioner also argued that an MCI
application for the intercom was in contravention of a January 30, 20 13 DHCR order
("Modification Order," Petition, exhibit C) that granted Owner permission to change the
intercom system at no cost to the tenants. Finally, petitioner contended that open hazardous
conditions at the Premises and Owner' s allegedly false statements in Department of Buildings
("DOB") filings should preclude the MCI rent increase.
In an order dated February 11 , 2013, DHCR granted the MCI based on the results of a
DHCR inspection, which revealed that the boiler, security system, and intercom were "new."
(MCI Order, Petition, exhibit D, NYSCEF No. 6). The MCI Order included a rent increase of
$8.98 based on the approved costs for the boiler and security and intercom systems but excluded
the costs of the fencing (id.). Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for administrative review
("PAR").
In an order dated October 2, 2020 ("2020 PAR Order"), the Deputy Commissioner
affirmed the MCI Order, finding: (1) that the Rent Administrator properly relied on the
certificate to operate issued for the boiler in determining the completion date; (2) that the open
violation did not justify delay of the MCI increase; (3) that the Modification Order did not
preclude the MCI rent increase for the intercom; (4) that claims relating to Owner's DOB filings
were outside DHCR's purview; (4) that petitioner's claim that the Owner created additional
154859/2023 10 WEST 55TH STREET TENANTS ASSOCIATION v NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF Page 2 of 6
HOUSING AND COMMMUNITY RENEWAL et al
Motion No. 001
[* 2] 2 of 6
INDEX NO. 154859/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024
apartments and additional rooms at the Premises was unsubstantiated; and (5) that the Rent
Administrator adequately set forth all findings (Petition, exhibit E, NYSCEF No. 7). Thereafter,
petitioner commenced an Article 78 proceeding on January 1, 2020 (Index No. 160407/2020),
which resolved in a stipulation to remit for further consideration and issuance of a new order and
determination (Answer, exhibit D, NYSCEF No. 26).
After the remit, the Deputy Commissioner issued an order dated March 31, 2023
("Challenged Order"), which partially modified the 2020 PAR Order (Petition, exhibit A,
NYSCEF No. 3). Specifically, the Deputy Commissioner found that that petitioner demonstrated
that the completion date of the boiler work was more than two years prior to Owner's MCI
application, and therefore any rent increase for that work should be disallowed pursuant to 9
NYCRR 2522.4(a)(8) and 2202.4(c)(4)(vi) (id.). The Deputy Commissioner further found that
the hazardous violation which existed at the time of the MCI application was not corrected until
February 5, 2019 and altered the effective date of the MCI rent increase accordingly (id.). The
Challenged Order left intact all other conclusions in the 2020 PAR Order (id.).
Discussion
In the context of an Article 78 proceeding, the court's function is to evaluate whether,
upon the facts before an administrative agency, that agency 's determination had a rational basis
in the record or was arbitrary and capricious (CPLR § 7803 [3]; see, e.g. Matter ofPell v Board
ofEduc. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns ofScarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester
County, 34 NY2d 222 [1974]; Maller of E. G. A. Assoc. v New York State Div. ofHous. &
Community Renewal, 232 AD2d 302 [l st Dept 1996]). The administrative determination will
only be found arbitrary and capricious if it is " without sound basis in reason, and in disregard of .
. . the facts" (see Matter ofCentury Operating Corp. v Popolizio, 60 NY2d 483,488 [1983],
154859/2023 10 WEST 55TH STREET TENANTS ASSOCIATION v NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF Page 3 of 6
HOUSING AND COMMMUNITY RENEWAL et al
Motion No. 001
[* 3] 3 of 6
INDEX NO. 154859/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024
citing Matter ofPell, supra at 231 ). A reviewing court may not substitute its own judgment for
that of the agency making the determination (see Partnership 92 LP v New York State Div. of
Hous. & Community Renewal, 46 AD3d 425 [ I st Dept 2007]). If the administrative
determination has a rational basis, there can be no judicial interference (Matter ofPell, supra at
231 -232).
As the agency charged with administration of the Rent Stabilization Law, DHCR "has
broad discretion in evaluating pertinent factual data and determining the inferences to draw from
it" (Hawthorne Gardens, LLC v New York State Div. of Haus. & Community Renewal, 4 AD3d
135 [1 st Dept 2004]). As such, DHCR is entitled to deference as to issues of credibility and the
weight of evidence (Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. &
Community Renewal, 75 NY2d 206, 213 [1989); see Jane St. Co. v New York Stale Div. ofHaus.
& Community Renewal, 165 AD2d 758 [1st Dept 1990)). On review of the parties ' submissions,
the Court finds that petitioner has not demonstrated that the Challenged Order lacked a rational
basis in the record or was arbitrary and capricious.
Petitioner's first contention is that the Owner created additional apartments and therefore
additional rooms at the Premises. Both the 2020 PAR Order and the Challenged Order found that
the evidence presented by petitioner was insufficient to establish that the apartments have been
altered, and nothing in the record before the Court indicates that the DHCR' s conclusions are
"without sound basis in reason and in disregard of ... the facts" (see Matter of Century
Operating Corp. v Popolizio, 60 NY2d 483 , 488 [1983], citing Matter of Pell, supra at 23 I).
Accordingly, this Court may not disturb the agency's assessment of the evidence before it (see
Matter ofAnsonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. ofHous. & Community Renewal, 75
NY2d 206, 213 [ 1989)).
154859/2023 10 WEST 65™ STREET TENANTS ASSOCIATION v NEW YORK STA TE DIVISION OF Page 4 of 6
HOUSING AND COMMMUNITY RENEWAL et al
Motion No. 001
[* 4] 4 of 6
INDEX NO. 154859/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024
Second, petitioner argues that Owner should be precluded from seeking an MCI rent
increase based on the intercom installation by the prior Modification Order. 9 NYCRR 2522.4(f)
provides that an owner may apply to modify or substitute required services at no change to legal
rent on the grounds that such modification is consented to, is required for the operation of the
building in accordance with the law, or is not inconsistent with the RSL or the New York City
Administrative Code. Pursuant to this provision, no such modification or substitution may take
place prior to receiving approval for such by DHCR (id.). However, nothing in the provision nor
in any authority provided by petitioner precludes an owner from subsequently seeking an MCI
rent increase for such modification or substitution so long as the work otherwise satisfies the
requirements for an MCI.
To the extent that petitioner contends that DHCR erroneously found that the installation
of the security and intercom systems meet MCI requirements, the Court again defers to the
credibility and factual determinations made by DHCR as set fo11h in the Challenged Order, as
nothing in the record before the Court demonstrates that the conclusions therein had no rational
basis in fact or law, particularly where the security and intercom systems concededly monitored
all entrances and exits to the Premises and therefore were to be utilized by all residents.
Petitioner' s final argument that the MCI rent increases should be precluded based upon
allegedly false statements made in DOB filings in unavailing, as petitioner' s recourse regarding
such allegations lies with that agency. This Court cannot find that DHCR's determination that it
lacked jurisdiction to make findings on the propriety of filings made with another agency was
arbitrary and capricious or lacked rational basis.
154859/2023 10 WEST 65TH STREET TENANTS ASSOCIATION v NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF Page 5 of 6
HOUSING AND COMMMUNITY RENEWAL et al
Motion No. 001
[* 5] 5 of 6
INDEX NO. 154859/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that petitioner has not met its burden to show that
the Challenged Order was arbitrary and capricious nor that it lacked a rational basis in fact or
law. Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is
dismissed; and it is further
ORDERED that respondents shall serve a copy of this order upon petitioner and upon
the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office with notice of entry within twenty days thereof; and it is
further
ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk shall be made in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and county Clerk Procedures for
Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court' s website at the address
www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh); and it is further
ORDERED that any requested relief not expressly addressed herein has been considered
and is denied.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
01/02/2024
DATE SHAH
~
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
154859/2023 10 WEST 65TH STREET TENANTS ASSOCIATION v NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF Page 6 of 6
HOUSING AND COMMMUNITY RENEWAL et al
Motion No. 001
[* 6] 6 of 6