Lite View, LLC v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1DissentCatterson, J.
I must respectfully dissent because, in my opinion, the determination of DHCR’s Deputy Commissioner was made “without regard to the facts.” More importantly, the finding that the “alteration” of the subject apartment is inconsistent with the rent laws ignores well-established precedent. Rather than considering the impact on the tenant of reconfiguration, or “alteration to the shape and character” of an apartment, precedent requires the application of an “adequate substitute” test, which, in my opinion, is satisfied here. The majority’s holding to the contrary is based primarily on the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Scherbyn v. Wayne-Finger Lakes Board of Cooperative Educational ServicesNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Greystone Management Corp. v. Conciliation & Appeals BoardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- West Village Associates v. Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Vento v. PrinceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Greenberg v. HigginsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.