Residential Mgmt. v. Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, 234 A.D.2d 154 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Residential Mgmt. v. Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, 234 A.D.2d 154 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Retamozzo v. Friedland (nyappdiv, 2015-04-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Retamozzo v. Friedland
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Plaintiffs contention that he did not have notice of the filing of the report is “demonstrably false,” as the record shows that the report was filed and published online on May 10, 2012, and that on May 22, 2012 defense counsel informed plaintiff of the report’s online publication (Wilf v Halpern, 234 AD2d 154, 154 [1st Dept 1996]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) 370 Manhattan Ave. Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Residential Mgt., 234 AD2d at 155).
In the Matter of Residential Management
v.
Division of Housing and Community Renewal
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 17, 1996.
234 A.D.2d 154
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered July 13, 1995, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s reversal of its District Rent Administrator’s order granting petitioner a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase, which reversal was based on rent-reduction orders issued because of petitioner’s failure to maintain required services and in effect at the time the Rent Administrator issued the rent-increase order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2522.4 (a) (13) makes it[*155] discretionary with respondent either to deny an MCI application when the applicant is not maintaining all required services or to grant the application on condition that such services will be restored within a reasonable period of time. Inasmuch as respondent’s determination not to grant a conditional increase fell well within its discretion, and was rationally based on the record evidence, it cannot be said to be arbitrary. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.