| Matter of 9215 Realty, LLC v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous.& Community Renewal |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 01187 [136 AD3d 925] |
| February 17, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of 9215 Realty, LLC,Appellant, v State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewalet al., Respondents. |
Tenenbaum Berger & Shivers LLP, Brooklyn, NY (David M. Berger andDamien Bernache of counsel), for appellant.
Gary R. Connor, New York, NY (Aida P. Reyes of counsel), for respondent State ofNew York Division of Housing and Community Renewal.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Emily Ruben and Mimi Rosenberg ofcounsel), for respondent Nikia Williams.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the NewYork State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated January 29, 2013, whichdenied a petition for administrative review and affirmed a Rent Administrator's findingthat Nikia Williams was entitled to succession rights to a rent-stabilized apartment, thepetitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.),dated February 6, 2014, which denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed theproceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
"Judicial review of administrative determinations that were not made after aquasi-judicial hearing is limited to whether the determination was made in violation oflawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or anabuse of discretion" (Matter ofRiverside Tenants Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & CommunityRenewal, 133 AD3d 764, 766 [2015], citing CPLR 7803 [3]; see Matter of Murphy v New YorkState Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 21 NY3d 649, 652 [2013];Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 [1995]; Matter of Halperin v City of NewRochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 771 [2005]). "An action is arbitrary and capriciouswhen it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts" (Matter ofMurphy v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 21 NY3d at652 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, there was a rational basis for thedetermination by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal thatNikia Williams was entitled to succession rights to a rent-stabilized apartment leased toher mother as the tenant of record. Williams submitted ample documentation tosubstantiate her claim that she resided with her mother in the subject apartment as theirprimary residence for a period of no less than two years prior to her mother's death,thereby entitling Williams to succession rights under Rent Stabilization Code (9NYCRR) § 2523.5 (b) (1). Since this determination was not arbitrary andcapricious, the Supreme Court [*2]properly denied thepetition challenging the determination and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. Balkin,J.P., Dickerson, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.