Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(the property owner's challenge denied)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Matter of 251 W. 74 Owners Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 6, 2026
Docket
Index No. 159165/23|Appeal No. 7168|Case No. 2024-01896|
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05711
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 7, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Supreme Court: granted the petition to vacate DHCR's determination and the rent reduction order.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (the property owner's challenge denied)

TL;DR

  1. 1A property owner wanted to challenge a rent reduction order from the state housing agency, claiming it was unjust.
  2. 2The court ruled that the property owner does not have the right to challenge it because the sponsor can also contest the order.
  3. 3Since the challenge to rent reduction could still be made by the sponsor, the court found no standing for the property owner.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Can the property owner challenge the rent reduction order?

    Holding · The court said no because the sponsor could also challenge the order, which makes their standing invalid.

Why it matters

This decision clarifies who can appeal housing decisions, affecting property owners and sponsors in rent disputes.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

A property owner wants to fight a rent reduction. Can they if the sponsor can challenge too?

  1. 1A property owner challenged a rent reduction decision from New York's housing agency.
  2. 2The agency denied their petition for an administrative review of the rent decision.
  3. 3The court reviewed whether the property owner had standing to appeal since the sponsor could also contest the order.

Can a property owner contest a rent cut if the landlord can too?

Parties

  • Appellant

    Matter of 251 W. 74 Owners Corp.

  • Appellee

    New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Matter of 251 W. 74 Owners Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal 2026 NY Slip Op 05711 October 6, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of 251 West 74 Owners Corp., Petitioner-Respondent, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent-Appellant, Pamela Trester et al., Respondents. Decided and Entered: October 06, 2026 Index No. 159165/23|Appeal No. 7168|Case No. 2024-01896| Before: Moulton, J.P., Gesmer, Shulman, Hagler, Parker-Raso, JJ. Mark F. Palomino, New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal, New York (Jason G. Parpas of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Allison M. Furman, P.C., New York (Allison M. Furman of counsel), for respondent. [*1] Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered February 15, 2024, granting the petition to vacate respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR) determination which denied the petition for administrative review and affirmed the rent reduction order of the rent administrator, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, DHCR's determination reinstated, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed. Petitioner has not demonstrated that Covington Realty, LLC, the sponsor and proprietary lessor could not challenge the rent reduction order itself, which is a requirement for petitioner to assert third-party standing (see New York County Lawyers' Assn. v State of New York, 294 AD2d 69, 74-75 [1st Dept 2002]). Even considering the merits of the due process claim, Sackman Enterprises, LLC was the managing agent for both petitioner and Covington. Sackman's address was listed on the 2021 registration statement with DHCR. Covington could have provided their own name and contact information to DHCR since rent registrations are owner-reported (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6[i]). However, they evidently did not. Additionally, while respondent tenants' leases stated that Covington was the landlord, the leases specifically provide Sackman's address as the point of contact. Further, Covington designated Sackman to receive process on its behalf with the New York Department of State. For these reasons, petitioner fails to state a due process violation (see Gutterman v Eimicke, 125 FRD 348, 353 [ED NY 1989]). The rent reduction order was not arbitrary and capricious nor was it in error of law (see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434, 438 [1971]). We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 6, 2026
View on CourtListener