IN RE 18 ST. MARKS PLACE TRIDENT LLC, pet-ap, v. STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION, res-res

3449. IN RE 18 ST. MARKS PLACE TRIDENT LLC, pet-ap, v. STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION, res-res — Barry S. Schwartz, New York, for ap — Mark F. Palomino, New York (Dawn Ivy Schindelman of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered August 19, 2016, which denied the CPLR article 78 petition seeking to, among other things, vacate respondent's determination dated March 14, 2016, which affirmed a rent administrator's order finding that an apartment owned by petitioner was not eligible for deregulation and awarding the tenant an overcharge, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the petition granted, the rent administrator's order reversed, the overcharge annulled, and it is declared that the legal regulated rent for the apartment is $2,035.13 per month and that the apartment is not subject to rent stabilization.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3449. IN RE 18 ST. MARKS PLACE TRIDENT LLC, pet-ap, v. STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION, res-res — Barry S. Schwartz, New York, for ap — Mark F. Palomino, New York (Dawn Ivy Schindelman of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered August 19, 2016, which denied the CPLR article 78 petition seeking to, among other things, vacate respondent’s determination dated March 14, 2016, which affirmed a rent administrator’s order finding that an apartment owned by petitioner was not eligible for deregulation and awarding the tenant an overcharge, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the petition granted, the rent administrator’s order reversed, the overcharge annulled, and it is declared that the legal regulated rent for the apartment is $2,035.13 per month and that the apartment is not subject to rent stabilization.

Respondent’s determination allowing charges for installation of new drywall and flooring, but disallowing expenses related to finishing the new surfaces, was irrational (see Matter of West Vil. Assoc. v. Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 277 AD2d 111, 112 [1st Dept 2000]). Here, the invoice listed the costs for painting and floor finishing of the entire apartment relative to the installation of the new floors and new walls in an easily discernible manner. The invoice submitted by petitioner reflected a charge of $1,680 for painting 1,750 square feet of interior surfaces. It also showed that 1,200 square feet of new drywall was installed. Thus, 68.57 percent of the total painting charge, or $1,151.98, was attributable to the new drywall, and that charge should have been allowed.

IN RE 18 ST. MARKS PLACE TRIDENT LLC, pet-ap, v. STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION, res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal