IN RE WILFREDO ARIAS, ETC., pet-ap, v. WOODY PASCAL, ETC. resres

9045. IN RE WILFREDO ARIAS, ETC., pet-ap, v. WOODY PASCAL, ETC. resres Breier Deutschmeister Urban Popper Law Group PLLC, New York (Jason S. Deutschmeister of counsel), for ap — Gary R. Connor, New York (Christina S. Ossi of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered June 24, 2011, denying the petition to vacate respondents' decision dated September 7, 2010, which determined that petitioner landlord was not entitled to collect a washing machine surcharge from the tenant, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9045. IN RE WILFREDO ARIAS, ETC., pet-ap, v. WOODY PASCAL, ETC. resres Breier Deutschmeister Urban Popper Law Group PLLC, New York (Jason S. Deutschmeister of counsel), for ap — Gary R. Connor, New York (Christina S. Ossi of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered June 24, 2011, denying the petition to vacate respondents’ decision dated September 7, 2010, which determined that petitioner landlord was not entitled to collect a washing machine surcharge from the tenant, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly deferred to respondents’ interpretation of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) §2522.9 and Operational Bulletin 2005-1, as their interpretation is rational (see Matter of Marzec v. DeBuono, 95 NY2d 262, 266 [2000]). Both §2522.9(b)(1) and the Bulletin, setting the permissible amount of the surcharge, contain language permitting only a prospective surcharge where a previously installed washing machine “comes to the attention” of the landlord, and the landlord “consents” to its continued use. Respondents rationally interpreted this present-tense language to mean that §2522.9(b) (1) does not apply where landlords had acquiesced to a tenant’s use of a washing machine before the effective date of the regulation on December 20, 2000. Here, it is undisputed that petitioner had acquiesced to the use of a washing machine, without imposing a surcharge or taking any other action, before the effective date of the regulation, and continued to do so until after the issuance of the Bulletin in 2005. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to impose even a prospective surcharge.

IN RE WILFREDO ARIAS, ETC., pet-ap, v. WOODY PASCAL, ETC. resres

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal