In Matter of Peckman v. Calogero , Daniel Peckman filed a special -- "Article 78" -- proceeding and asked a New York County Supreme Court judge to revoke a New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) decision which denied Peckman a renewal lease.
Peckman was the building's only remaining tenant and Chelsea Partners sought to demolish the structure in order to build another apartment complex in its place. When the DHCR approved the request, and his rent-stabilized lease was not renewed, Peckman challenged the landlord's application alleging that its construction plan didn't comprise a "demolition" and the owner didn't have the financial ability to complete the project.
When the New York County Supreme Court sent the matter back to the DHCR for further consideration, Chelsea appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department, which reversed and upheld the DHCR decision denying Peckman a renewal.
According to that appellate court, Peckman's "demolition" argument hadn't been properly or timely raised and the owner's lack of financial ability to perform the work had been abandoned (because the tenant never raised that argument when he was before the DHCR ).
A lone dissenter -- Justice Acosta -- expressed discomfort with the absence of a definition of the term and was of the view the agency's focus should be to preserve (rather than eliminate) affordable housing. Acosta believed that goal could be furthered by way of an "objective and clear process," so those "entitled to rent-stabilized housing are not literally left out in the cold."
Will the Court of Appeals chill this discord?
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Matter of Peckman v. Calogero