Matter of 219 E. 69th St. Tenants Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2011 NY Slip Op 05868 [86 AD3d 434]

July 7, 2011

Appellate Division, First Department

— [*1]

Collins Dobkin & Miller LLP, New York (Timothy L. Collins of counsel), for appellants.

Gary R. Connor, New York (Kathleen Lamar of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered February 3, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated June 25, 2009, granting intervenor-respondent owner’s application for a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase based on the installation of new windows, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the record before DHCR permitted it to rationally and reasonably find that, other than seven apartments where defective window installations were found, the remaining apartments were subject to an MCI rent increase based on the window installations ( compare Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 75 NY2d 206 [1989], with Matter of Weinreb Mgt. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 305 AD2d 207 [2003]). DHCR providently exercised its discretion in attempting to inspect only those apartments identified by petitioners as having defective window installations ( see Matter of 370 Manhattan Ave. Co., L.L.C. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 11 AD3d 370 , 371 [2004]). Contrary to petitioners’ contention, there was no court order requiring DHCR to perform more inspections. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 30176(U).].