Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)

In response to Local Law No. 73, respondent, which had previously issued “1996-97 Amended MBR Order[s] of Eligibility” as a result of our decision, issued “orders of suspension”. These orders suspended the amended orders until further notice “[t]o avoid uncertainty, confusion and hardship among tenants and owners regarding the application of [Local Law No. 73]”. Petitioners, owners of rent-controlled units in New York *114City and industry trade organizations representing property owners throughout New York City who sought maximum base rent increases for the 1996-1997 cycle, commenced this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action against respondent. Alleging that respondent “has determined that Local Law [No. 73] may not or does not violate the Urstadt Law”,1 petitioners claim that they are entitled to a declaration “that because Local Law [No. 73] is in violation of the Urstadt Law, any action taken by [respondent] to enforce or to give credence to [it], by reason of Suspension Orders notices, or otherwise, is invalid and of no force and effect” (emphasis supplied). They also seek a declaration that respondent is obligated to compute the maximum base rent increases as reflected in its amended orders. With respect to their requested CPLR article 78 relief, petitioners allege that respondent “failed to perform the duty enjoined upon it by law to administer and timely process the [a] mended MBR orders” and seek to vacate and annul any action taken by respondent to suspend their entitlement to the maximum base rent increases. Additionally, petitioners charge that respondent acted in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the orders of suspension.