Matter of Segal v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2025 NY Slip Op 04654 (2025)

Judicial review of an administrative determination is generally limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Fairley v State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 214 AD3d 800, 801). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that DHCR committed an error of law in failing to apply the version of the Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) (9 NYCRR) § 2526.1(a)(3)(iii) that was in effect at the time that the rent overcharge complaint was filed (see id. § 2527.7; Matter of West 147 & 150, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 191 AD3d 419). DHCR's reasoning that applying the amended version of RSC § 2526.1(a)(3)(iii) was impermissible because, thereunder, it would have been required to consider the subject apartment's rental history prior to the four-year period preceding the filing of the rent overcharge complaint failed to account for RSC § 2526.1(a)(2)(ix), which allows such consideration "for the purpose of establishing the legal regulated rent pursuant to section 2526.1(a)(3)(iii)" where, as here, the subject apartment was vacant on the base date. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, FORD and HOM, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court