Tack v. Herman

The landlord institutes this article 78 proceeding to review respondent’s determination which denied his application for rent increases in 23 apartments of the subject building.

Petitioner contends that the installations, etc., constituted a major capital improvement within the meaning of subdivision 1 of section 33 of the State Residential Rent Regulations (L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd.) and, therefore, respondent’s denial of the relief sought was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. The tenants’ replies, as gleaned from the record, show no increase in services in their respective apartments…