You are here: / / NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) ACTED ARBITRARILY...
,

NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT RULED THE MAXIMUM COLLECTIBLE RENT FOR AN APARTMENT WAS $125 PER MONTH, THE RENT HAD REMAINED LOW FOR DECADES BECAUSE THE APARTMENT HOUSE HAD BEEN OWNED AND RESIDED IN BY FAMILY MEMBERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it held that the current maximum collectible rent for the subject apartment is $125 per month. The apartment house had been owned and resided in by family members since 1941. The petitioner bought property in 2000:

… [E]ven assuming that the petitioner was aware or should have been aware of the subject apartment’s rent-controlled status at the time he purchased the building, this factor is not determinative. While an owner’s lack of such awareness may be considered in determining the maximum rent … , there is no requirement in 9 NYCRR 2202.7 that an owner lack prior knowledge of the regulated status of its premises in order to receive an increase in the maximum rent. Rather, … that provision solely requires “the presence of unique or peculiar circumstances” … , which are present in this case. Those circumstances have resulted in the same monthly rent of $125 being paid for the subject two-bedroom apartment since 1961, which is clearly substantially lower than rents generally prevailing in the same area for substantially similar housing accommodations … , and “there are issues of fairness and equity” that must be considered in setting an appropriate present day rent for the subject apartment … . Matter of Migliaccio v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2018 NY Slip Op 03132, Second Dept 5-2-18

​LANDLORD-TENANT (NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT RULED THE MAXIMUM COLLECTIBLE RENT FOR AN APARTMENT WAS $125 PER MONTH, THE RENT HAD REMAINED LOW FOR DECADES BECAUSE THE APARTMENT HOUSE HAD BEEN OWNED AND RESIDED IN BY FAMILY MEMBERS (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT RULED THE MAXIMUM COLLECTIBLE RENT FOR AN APARTMENT WAS $125 PER MONTH, THE RENT HAD REMAINED LOW FOR DECADES BECAUSE THE APARTMENT HOUSE HAD BEEN OWNED AND RESIDED IN BY FAMILY MEMBERS (SECOND DEPT))/RENT CONTROL (NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT RULED THE MAXIMUM COLLECTIBLE RENT FOR AN APARTMENT WAS $125 PER MONTH, THE RENT HAD REMAINED LOW FOR DECADES BECAUSE THE APARTMENT HOUSE HAD BEEN OWNED AND RESIDED IN BY FAMILY MEMBERS (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
City Can Not Be Held Liable for Injuries Caused by Attacking Dogs About Which Complaints Had Been Made—No Special Relationship Between Plaintiff’s Decedent and City
IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT, SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED A CRIME OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED; PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE UNDERLYING FACTS OF THE ASSAULT AND ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE DIFFERENT, SENTENCES MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Review of Rulings on Variances Explained
THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS “IRRATIONAL;” THE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS WERE TREATED ONLY ON THE DAY OF THEIR INJURIES, LOST NO WORK AND HAD NO OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES; THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO MEDICAL BENEFITS PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) AND THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​
PURSUANT TO THE PRIMARY JURISDICTION DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINTS ABOUT FINES IMPOSED BY DEFENDANT NATURAL-GAS PROVIDER MUST FIRST BE HEARD BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (SECOND DEPT). ​
A HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED (HEARSAY) (SECOND DEPT). ​
Grabbing and Spinning a Person Does Not Constitute Unlawful Imprisonment​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE MERE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT... ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND...