| Matter of Manko v New York State Div. of Hous. & CommunityRenewal, Off. of Rent Admin. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07053 [88 AD3d 719] |
| October 4, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Nella Manko et al., Appellants, v NewYork State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration,Respondent. |
—[*1]
Gary R. Connor, New York, N.Y. (Susan E. Kearns of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the DeputyCommissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office ofRent Administration, dated July 25, 2008, which denied a request for administrative review andconfirmed a determination of the Rent Administrator dated April 18, 2008, finding that the ownerof a rent-stabilized apartment had provided the tenants with a proper copy of their lease, thepetitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.),entered July 15, 2009, which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the appeal by the petitioner Liuba Manko is dismissed as abandoned (see22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the petitioner NellaManko; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the New York State Division of Housing andCommunity Renewal, Office of Rent Administration, payable by the petitioner Nella Manko.
The petitioner Nella Manko (hereinafter Manko), a tenant in a rent-stabilized apartment,complained to the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office [*2]of Rent Administration (hereinafter the DHCR), that the owner ofher building failed to provide her with a certified copy of a lease. The Rent Administrator made adetermination, inter alia, that Manko was provided with a proper copy of the lease, and theDeputy Commissioner of the DHCR denied a request for administrative review and confirmedthe Rent Administrator's determination. The petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78proceeding to review the determination. The Supreme Court, in effect, denied the petition anddismissed the proceeding. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from by Manko.
"[I]n reviewing a determination made by an administrative agency such as the DHCR, thecourt's inquiry is limited to whether the determination is arbitrary and capricious, or without arational basis in the record and a reasonable basis in law" (Matter of 508 Realty Assoc., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. &Community Renewal, 61 AD3d 753, 754-755 [2009]; see Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12NY3d 424, 431 [2009]; Matter of Gilman v New York State Div. of Hous. &Community Renewal, 99 NY2d 144, 149 [2002]; Matter of Acevedo v New York State Div. of Hous. & CommunityRenewal, 67 AD3d 785, 786 [2009]; Matter of Dominguez v Vanamerongen, 56 AD3d 667, 668[2008]). "An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason orregard to the facts" (Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d at 431). Where an agency'sdetermination is supported by a rational basis, a court must sustain the determination even if itwould have reached a different conclusion had it been presented with the question in the firstinstance (id.). Moreover, a court must defer to an administrative agency's "rationalinterpretation of its own regulations in its area of expertise" (id.; see Matter of 508Realty Assoc., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 61 AD3d at755; Matter of Dominguez v Vanamerongen, 56 AD3d at 668).
Here, Manko complained that the owner failed to provide her with a certified copy of herrenewal lease. However, the Rent Stabilization Code requires only that the owner furnish thetenant with a "fully executed renewal lease form, bearing the signatures of the owner and tenant"(Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.5 [b] [1]; see § 2523.5), whichwas accomplished here. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly held that the DHCR'sdetermination was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by "a rational basis in the recordand a reasonable basis in law" (Matter of 508 Realty Assoc., LLC v New York State Div. ofHous. & Community Renewal, 61 AD3d at 754-755). Accordingly, the Supreme Courtproperly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Manko's claim that an evidentiary hearing was required is without merit (id. at 755;see Matter of Acevedo v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 67AD3d at 787; Matter of DeSilva v NewYork State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin., 34 AD3d 673,674 [2006]; Matter of Richter v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,204 AD2d 648 [1994]; Matter of Rubin v Eimicke, 150 AD2d 697, 698 [1989];Matter of Plaza Realty Invs. v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 110 AD2d704 [1985]). Likewise, her contention that the DHCR should have consolidated this complaintwith another complaint she had filed against the owner is without merit, as the Rent StabilizationCode permits the DHCR to consolidate complaints, but does not require it to do so (seeRent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2527.5 [f]).
Manko's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court (see Matter of Peckhamv Calogero, 12 NY3d at 430; Matterof Rizzo v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 6 NY3d 104, 110[2005]; Matter of Gilman v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 99NY2d at 150; Matter of Yarbough v Franco, 95 NY2d 342, 347 [2000]; Matter ofAcevedo v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 67 AD3d at 786; Rent[*3]Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2529.6). Rivera, J.P.,Balkin, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.