Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of Kelley S. BOYD, Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, et al., Appellants.

Gary R. Connor, General Counsel, New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, New York City (Jack Kuttner of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, appellant.

Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., Forest Hills (David I. Paul and Jeffrey M. Steinitz of counsel), for 232/242 Realty Co. LLC and others, appellants.

Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation Legal Services, New York City (Kenneth N. Rosenfeld and Matthew J. Chachére of counsel), for respondent.

South Brooklyn Legal Services, Brooklyn (Edward Josephson of counsel) and Adriene Holder, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Ellen Davidson of counsel), for Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development and others, amici curiae.

Justin R. La Mort, Brooklyn, and Madeline La Forgia, for CAMBA Legal Services, Inc., amicus curiae.

Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, New York City (Ronald S. Languedoc of counsel), for Bill Perkins and another, amici curiae.

Adele Bartlett, Deputy General Counsel, Office of Manhattan Borough President, New York City, and Chaumtoli Huq, General Counsel for Litigation, Office of New York City Public Advocate, for Letitia James and others, amici curiae.

Opinion

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order reversed, with costs, judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated, and certified question answered in the negative. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's determination denying tenant's petition for administrative review was not arbitrary or capricious, as tenant failed to set forth sufficient indicia of fraud to warrant consideration

of the rental history beyond the four-year statutory period (see Matter of Grimm v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin., 15 N.Y.3d 358, 366–367, 912 N.Y.S.2d 491, 938 N.E.2d 924 [2010] ).

Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT, RIVERA and ABDUS–SALAAM concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Boyd v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal
(Jun 26, 2014)