=================================================================
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1 No. 202
In the Matter of Leona Dworman,
Respondent,
v.
New York State Division of
Housing and Community Renewal,
Appellant,
and 40 Central Park South, Inc.,
Intervenor-Appellant.
--------------------------------
1 No. 203
In the Matter of Julie Seymour,
Respondent,
v.
New York State Division of
Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR),
Appellant.
----------------------------------
1 No. 210 SSM 14
In the Matter of Peter Sudarsky
et al.,
Appellants,
v.
New York State Division of
Housing and Community Renewal,
et al.,
Respondents.
----------------------------------
Case No. 202:
Roderick J. Walters, for appellant.
Jeffrey R. Metz, for intervenor-appellant.
Kent Karlsson, for respondent.
Case No. 203:
Roderick J. Walters, for appellant.
Thomas J. Schwarz, for respondent.
Case No. 210 SSM 14:
Submitted by Steven A. Neil, for appellants.
Submitted by Jeffrey R. Metz, for respondents Langham Mansions
et al.
Submitted by Marion R. Buchbinder, for respondent DHCR.
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
In the Matter of Leona Dworman,
Respondent, v.
New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal,
Appellant, and 40 Central Park South, Inc.,
At issue in these cases is whether the Division of Housing and Communit y Renewal (DHCR) has
We hold that DHCR has authority to accept late respo nses, and therefore we remit Dworman and
In Seymour, however, we uphold DHCR's order deregulating the apartment, because DHCR did not
The luxury-decontrol provisions of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 19 93, amending the Rent
cedure: On or before May 1 of the calendar year, the landlord sends the tenant an "income
If the tenant fails to return the form, or if the landlord disputes the income amount
In March 1995, Dworman's landlord sent her an ICF, which Dworman timely returned, certifying
On February 27, 1997, the Rent Administrator issued an order of deregulation, stating that
Dworman filed a Petition for Administrative Review (PAR), which DHCR de nied on October 23,
Dworman then filed the instant article 78 petition, which Supreme Court dismissed, noting
The Appellate Division reversed, holding that DHCR's ruling was arbitrar y and capricious
The Division sent Sudarsky a notice on August 4, 1994, informing him of the petition and
We dismissed the appe al, because no substantial constitutional question was involved (see,
To be sure, whe re the interpretation of a statute involves specialized "knowledge and
Opinion by Chief Judge Kaye.
|
