From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Swing v. New York City Loft Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 18, 1992
180 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

February 18, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).


Here, as in Moskowitz v. Cartwright ( 135 Misc.2d 1132), the loft landlord was deemed to have constructively purchased a prior tenant's loft fixtures when the prior tenant abandoned the fixtures and the loft with rent unpaid in an amount exceeding the fair market value of the fixtures. Relying on Moskowitz and one of its own prior determinations, respondent Loft Board concluded that there was a constructive purchase of the fixtures pursuant to Multiple Dwelling Law § 286 (6) entitling the landlord to decontrol. The construction given statutes and regulations by the agency responsible for their administration, if not irrational or unreasonable, should be upheld (Matter of Lower Manhattan Loft Tenants v. New York City Loft Bd., 104 A.D.2d 223, affd 66 N.Y.2d 298). We agree with the IAS court that the Loft Board's construction of the statute, relying on Moskowitz and its own prior determination, was not unreasonable, and find each of petitioner's policy arguments to be without merit.

It was not an abuse of discretion for the IAS court to refer to the Civil Court the final determination of whether rent paid into that court should be turned over to petitioner, since this pending Civil Court matter could decide the issue dispositively (see, Ansonia Assocs. v. Costa, 167 A.D.2d 134).

We have not considered petitioner's argument that regulations promulgated pursuant to Multiple Dwelling Law § 286 (12) are ultra vires, since the Loft Board disclaimed any reliance on these regulations in making the challenged determination. Similarly, we decline to reach petitioner's argument that decontrol is precluded by the landlord's harassment, such having been raised for the first time in the article 78 proceeding (Matter of Fanelli v. New York City Conciliation Appeals Bd., 90 A.D.2d 756, 757, affd 58 N.Y.2d 952). In any event, the facts giving rise to the constructive purchase occurred three years before the Board's determination of harassment.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Swing v. New York City Loft Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 18, 1992
180 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Swing v. New York City Loft Board

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOHNNY SWING, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY LOFT BOARD et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 18, 1992

Citations

180 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
580 N.Y.S.2d 249

Citing Cases

Ryan v. Salva Realty Corp.

Ryan's reading of the law is correct. See e.g. Matter of Swing v New York City Loft Bd., 180 AD2d 529 (1st…

Parcel 242 Realty v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

As we have said previously, the RSC should not be construed to facilitate a landlord's "ignoring and…