IN RE KELLY S. BOYD, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL resres, C-UPTOWN REALTY res

10122. IN RE KELLY S. BOYD, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL resres, C-UPTOWN REALTY res — KELLY S. BOYD, APPELLANT PRO SE. Gary R. Connor, New York (Jack Kuttner of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, res — Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., Forest Hills (David I. Paul of counsel), for 232/242 Realty Co., LLC., res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered May 18, 2012, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), issued July 19, 2011, which denied petitioner's petition for administrative review (PAR) of the denial of her rent overcharge complaint, reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, and the matter remanded to DHCR for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10122. IN RE KELLY S. BOYD, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL resres, C-UPTOWN REALTY res — KELLY S. BOYD, APPELLANT PRO SE. Gary R. Connor, New York (Jack Kuttner of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, res — Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., Forest Hills (David I. Paul of counsel), for 232/242 Realty Co., LLC., res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered May 18, 2012, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), issued July 19, 2011, which denied petitioner’s petition for administrative review (PAR) of the denial of her rent overcharge complaint, reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, and the matter remanded to DHCR for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Although petitioner filed her overcharge complaint more than four years after the building owner registered the monthly rent, she contends that DHCR should not have accepted $1,750 as the registered monthly rent on the base date, April 7, 2005, because there are substantial indicia of fraud.

IN RE KELLY S. BOYD, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL resres, C-UPTOWN REALTY res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal