IN RE 620 WEST 182ND ST. HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES, LLC, petap, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, res-res

3769-3770. IN RE 620 WEST 182ND ST. HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES, LLC, petap, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, res-res — Sperber Denenberg & Kahan, PC, New York (Eric Kahan of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Max O. McCann of counsel), for res — Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered July 20, 2016, which denied, in part, the petition to vacate respondent's Alternative Enforcement Order (AEP Order) dated September 1, 2015, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating so much of the AEP Order that directed replacement of the floor joists in apartments 1C, 3C, and 5C, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered November 15, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, denied petitioner's motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3769-3770. IN RE 620 WEST 182ND ST. HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES, LLC, petap, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, res-res — Sperber Denenberg & Kahan, PC, New York (Eric Kahan of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Max O. McCann of counsel), for res — Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered July 20, 2016, which denied, in part, the petition to vacate respondent’s Alternative Enforcement Order (AEP Order) dated September 1, 2015, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating so much of the AEP Order that directed replacement of the floor joists in apartments 1C, 3C, and 5C, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered November 15, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, denied petitioner’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s AEP Order, as clarified by its February 2016 letter specifying the scope of the work required to remove violations of the Housing Maintenance Code, was not arbitrary and capricious, and had a rational basis (see Matter of Peckham v. Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]). Respondent’s construction project manager rationally concluded that the floor joists in certain apartments in the building, the entire water supply lines, and the branches and all lead bends of waste supply lines in the building were “related underlying conditions” that caused recurring violations, and therefore needed replacement (Administrative Code of City of NY §27-2153[k][I]). There was ample evidence in the record of floor violations in apartments 1A, 2A and 2C, and violations for leaks in half of the apartments in the building, prior to the issuance of the AEP Order. However, there were no prior floor violations in apartments 1C, 3C, and 5C, and therefore the AEP Order is modified to vacate the repair of the floor joists in those apartments.

IN RE 620 WEST 182ND ST. HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES, LLC, petap, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal