1 No. 172 SSM 13
In the Matter of Fred Mengoni,
Appellant,
v.
New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal et al.,
Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
2 No. 173 SSM 14
In the Matter of Orin Management Corp.,
Respondent,
v.
New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
No. 172 - SSM 13:
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 114
October 23, 2001
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Charles H. Small, for appellant.
Submitted by Jan C. Rose, for respondent State Division.
Submitted by David E. Fraser, for individual respondent.
No. 173 - SSM 14: Submitted by Jan C. Rose, for appellant.
No formal submission, for respondent.
Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc., amicus curić.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
In Mengoni v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, the
order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. In the
Matter of Orin Mgt. Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community
Renewal, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with
costs, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for further
proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.
The issue in both cases is whether the four-year limitations period
SNIPPETS:
No. 172 SSM 13
In the Matter of Fred Mengoni, Appellant, v.
New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal et al.,
In the Matter of Orin Management Corp., Respondent, v.
New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Appellant.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc., amicus curić.
& Community Renewal, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and
The issue in both cases is whether the four-year limitations period set forth in the
Mengoni v DHCR
Petitioner Mengoni, the landlord, owns a rent- stabilized apartment building in Manhattan.
The tenant filed a Petition for Administrative Review (PAR), which ultimately resulted in
Supreme Court remanded the matter to DHCR for a de novo hearing.
The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated DCHR's determination, holding that RRRA-97 did
We now affirm.
The District Rent Administrator ultimately determined that the landlord had overcharged the
Supreme Court granted the landlord's article 78 petition and annulled the DHCR order, holding
We now reverse.
Section 33 of the RRRA-97 amended RSL §26-516 to preclude DHCR from calculating rent
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
|
