Velasquez v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 130 A.D.3d 1045 (2015)

Citation: Velasquez v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 130 A.D.3d 1045 (2015)
Parent Document: Velasquez v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 130 A.D.3d 1045 (2015)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2015-07-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6194996/velasquez-v-new-york-state-divi... ↗

Full Text

1,348 chars

The determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the DHCR that the Marrones were not entitled to collect a “first stabilization rent” on the petitioner’s apartment had a rational basis in the record and was not arbitrary and capricious (Matter of 300 W. 49th St. Assoc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 212 AD2d 250, 252 [1995]; see Roker Realty Corp. v Gross, 163 Misc 2d 766 [1995]; cf. Matter of Devlin v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 309 AD2d 191 [2003]). A first stabilization rent is “an administratively created policy implemented by DHCR in its capacity as the administrative agency which regulates residential rents” (Matter of 300 W. 49th St. Assoc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 212 AD2d at 253). “The policy applies only when the perimeter walls of the apartment have been substantially moved and changed and where the previous apartment, essentially, ceases to exist, thereby rendering its rental history meaningless” (id.). Contrary to the opinion of our colleague, under the circumstances of this case, there is a rational basis in the record to conclude that the Marrones did not construct a new apartment unit by simply unsealing a doorway that led to two additional bedrooms (see Roker Realty Corp. v Gross, 163 Misc 2d at 768).

Other Sections in This Document (22)

Full Text