Citation Numbers: 9 Misc. 2d 979
Judges: Hofstadtee
Filed Date: 2/4/1958
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/5/2022
This is a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review and annul an order of the State Bent Administrator denying the petitioner landlord an increase in maximum rents. The application for increase was made under subdivision 5 of section 33 of the State Bent and Eviction Begulations, on the claim that the rental income from the property yields a net annual return of less than 6% of the valuation of the property. The statute, as amended, here applicable prescribes that “ Such valuation shall be the current assessed valuation established * * * properly adjusted * * * except where there has been a bona fide sale of the property as the result of a transaction at arms’ length, on normal financing terms at a readily ascertainable price and unaffected by special circumstances such as a forced sale, exchange of property, package deal, wash sale or sale to cooperative ” (State Residential Rent Law, § 4, subd. 4, par. [a], cl. [1]; L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd. by L. 1957, ch. 755).
Instead of applying the equalized assessed valuation to the petitioner’s property, the respondent treated its cost to the petitioner as the properly applicable valuation. The petitioner acquired the property by accepting a deed in lieu of foreclosure from the former owner. The respondent viewed the transaction so concluded as a bona fide sale within the terms of the statute, permitting departure from the general rule which prescribes
The other errors complained of by the petitioner are without merit. Since, however, on the present record there was no justification for not using the equalized assessed valuation, the order is annulled and the matter remitted to the Administrator for further action not inconsistent herewith.
Settle order.