Peckham v. Calogero
861 N.Y.S.2d 316, 54 A.D.3d 27 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may not remand a matter to an administrative agency for clarification of standards when the agency's initial determination was rational, based on a complete record, and consistent with its own established precedent. An agency cannot use a remand to get a second chance to reach a different determination on the merits.
Facts:
- Chelsea Partners owns a building at 244 West 21st Street where the petitioner is the sole remaining rent-stabilized tenant.
- In May 2004, Chelsea Partners sought permission from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) to not renew the petitioner's lease because it intended to demolish the building.
- The demolition plan involved removing the roof, the entire interior of the building, all partitions, floors, and building systems, as well as the entire rear wall and much of the facade.
- The plan was to replace the existing four-story, 40-foot-deep building with a new six-story, 70-foot-deep building.
- To demonstrate financial ability, Chelsea Partners submitted a bank printout showing a $4.8 million balance in an account held by a related entity, Three Stars Associates LLC.
- A letter from the bank, addressed to Larry Tauber, a member of Chelsea Partners, confirmed the funds were for the construction project at the subject property.
Procedural Posture:
- Chelsea Partners filed an application with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR).
- On December 13, 2005, the DHCR Rent Administrator granted Chelsea Partners' application.
- The tenant (petitioner) filed a Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) challenging the Rent Administrator's decision.
- On July 27, 2006, DHCR denied the tenant's PAR.
- The tenant initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the Supreme Court, New York County (a trial court) to annul DHCR's determination.
- The Supreme Court granted the tenant's petition to the extent of remanding the matter to DHCR for clarification on the standard for 'demolition' and financial ability.
- Chelsea Partners appealed the Supreme Court's remand order to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a court-ordered remand to an administrative agency for clarification of standards proper when the agency's initial determination was rational and based on a complete record and established precedent?
Opinions:
Majority - Saxe, J.
No. A court-ordered remand to an administrative agency is improper when the agency's original determination was rational and supported by the record, as an agency may not seek a remand for a 'second chance to reach a different determination on the merits.' The petitioner failed to preserve his arguments regarding the definition of 'demolition' and the owner's financial ability by not raising them in his Petition for Administrative Review (PAR). Even if the issues were preserved, DHCR's long-standing precedent establishes that a total gutting of a building's interior constitutes a 'demolition,' and its determination of Chelsea Partners' financial ability was rational given the clear connection between the entities. Since the agency's initial decision was rational, based on a complete record, and in accord with well-established principles, there was no legitimate ground for the remand.
Dissenting - Acosta, J.
Yes. The remand was proper because DHCR, the expert administrative agency, conceded that it lacks a formal definition of 'demolition' and that its initial finding on the owner's financial ability was erroneous. Courts should defer to an agency's expertise, especially when the agency itself requests the opportunity to correct an 'irregularity in vital matters' and establish a transparent, uniform standard for future cases as permitted by the Rent Stabilization Code. Preventing the agency from correcting its own conceded errors undermines the legislative intent for DHCR to adjudicate such disputes and creates a risk of inconsistent, arbitrary decisions.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of finality in administrative law, limiting judicial remands to situations involving genuine illegality, fraud, or a significant irregularity, rather than an agency's subsequent change of position. It holds that an agency's rational decision, based on a complete record and existing precedent, cannot be undone simply because the agency later wishes to create new formal standards. The ruling also provides precedential weight to the DHCR's uncodified but long-standing interpretation that a 'demolition' under the Rent Stabilization Code includes a complete gut renovation, providing greater certainty for property owners and tenants in similar future disputes.
