Full text
Matter of Village Ventura Assoc. LLC v. State of N.Y. Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance
Matter of Village Ventura Assoc. LLC v State of N.Y. Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance 2025 NY Slip Op 30438(U) February 4, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 157545/2023 Judge: Shahabuddeen A. Ally Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/04/2025 03:05 P~ INDEX NO. 157545/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/04/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. SHAHABUDDEEN ABID ALLY PART16M Justice
In the Matter of the Application of INDEX NO. 157545/2023
MOTION DATE 12/7/2023 VILLAGE VENTURA ASSOCIATES LLC and MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 VENTURA LAND CORP.,
Petitioners,
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, DECISION & ORDER -against-
THE STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE,
Respondent.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number, were read on this motion and cross-motion (Seq. No. 1) to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)/DISMISSAL: 1-15, 21-26
In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioners VILLAGE VENTURA ASSOCIATES LLC and VENTURA LAND CORP. (together, "Petitioners") seek judicial review of the decision of re-
spondent THE STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSIS- TANCE ("Respondent") denying Petitioners' application for New York State COVID-19 Landlord Rental Assistance Program ("LRAP"). Respondent cross-moves for dismissal, but Petitioners have not submitted opposition to the cross-motion. For the reasons discussed below, Respondent's cross-motion is GRANTED, the Notice of Petition is DENIED, and the Verified Petition is DE- NIED and DISMISSED.
I. BACKGROUND
On or about October 7, 2021, Petitioners submitted an application under LRAP for the premises located at 128 West 13th Street, Apartment 7, New York, New York (the "Apartment") (the "LRAP Application''). (See Verified Pet. (NYSCEF Doc. 1) 11117, 16) On or about November
157545/2023 Village Ventura Associates LLC v. The State of N. Y. Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Page 1 of 5 Mot. Seq. No. 001
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/04/2025 03:05 P~ INDEX NO. 157545/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/04/2025 18, 2021, Respondent approved the LRAP Application and paid $31,271.28 in rental arrears to
Petitioners. (Id. <_[ 17)
On or about January 12, 2023, Respondent issued a notice to Petitioners (the "1/12/2023 Notice") stating that an overpayment in the amount of $31,271.28 had been made on the LRAP
Application. (Id. <_[ 18) The 1/12/2023 Notice requested that Petitioners return the overpayment
amount to Respondent. (Id.)
On or about February 10, 2023, Petitioners submitted an administrative appeal of the
1/12/2023 Notice to Respondent. (Id. <_[ 24) On or about March 28, 2023, Respondent issued a de-
cision on Petitioners' administrative appeal (the "3/28/2023 Appeal Decision"), affirming the over-
payment determination in the 1/12/2023 Notice. (Id. <_[ 26)
On July 28, 2023, Petitioners filed the Verified Petition in this Article 78 proceeding. (See
Verified Pet.) The Verified Petition seeks reversal of the 3/28/2023 Appeal Decision and the
1/12/2023 Notice, a finding that Petitioners were properly paid in the first instance, and an order
directing Respondent to repay Petitioners in the amount of $31,271.28. (Id. at WHEREFORE
Clause)
On or about August 24, 2023, Respondent notified Petitioner that the 1/12/2023 Notice had
been issued in error and was rescinded. (See Aff. of Rajni Chawla in Supp. of Resp't's Cross-Mot.
to Dismiss, sworn to on November 28, 2023 ("Chawla A.ff") (NYSCEF Doc. 23), <_[ 21; id. Ex. A) On
or about August 28, 2023, Respondent issued a new notice of denial of Petitioners' LRAP Appli-
cation (the "8/28/2023 Notice"). (Id.<_[ 22) The 8/28/2023 Notice stated that the Apartment's rental amount exceeded 150% of fair market rent for the unit size, contrary to LRAP' s eligibility require-
ments. (Id.; id. Ex. B at p. 1) The 8/28/2023 Notice further stated that Petitioner could submit an
administrative appeal of the determination within 30 days. (Id. <_[ 24; id. Ex. B at p. 1) Petitioner
did not submit an administrative appeal of the 8/28/2023 Notice within 30 days of its issuance. (Id. <_[ 25)
Petitioners do not dispute any of the foregoing facts. Instead, Petitioners assert that be- cause Respondent did not identify the grounds for its claim of overpayment and recoupment in the 1/12/2023 Notice, Petitioners lacked notice as to the basis of Respondent's decision and there- fore could not formulate grounds for an appeal, thus denying Petitioners due process. (See
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/04/2025 03:05 P~ INDEX NO. 157545/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/04/2025 Verified Pet. <JI 35) Respondent asserts that this Court should dismiss the Petition pursuant to
CPLR 3211(a)(2) on grounds of mootness.
II. DISCUSSION
In an Article 78 proceeding a court reviews an agency decision to determine whether it
violates lawful procedures, is arbitrary or capricious, or is affected by an error of law. CPLR
§ 7803(3); Kent v. Lefkowitz, 27 N.Y.3d 499, 505 (2016); W. 58th St. Coalition, Inc. v. City of N. Y., 188
A.D.3d 1, 8 (1st Dep't 2020). "This review is deferential for it is not the role of the courts to weigh
the desirability of any action or choose among alternatives." Save America's Clocks, Inc. v. City of
N. Y., 33 N.Y.3d 198,207 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[E]ven if different conclusions
could be reached as a result of conflicting evidence," a reviewing court may not substitute its own
judgment for that of the agency making the determination. Partnership 92 LP v. N. Y.S. Div. ofHous.
& Community Renewal, 46 A.D.3d 425, 429 (1st Dep't 2007). "[T]he courts cannot interfere unless
there is no rational basis for the exercise of discretion" or "the action is without sound basis in
reason ... and taken without regard to the facts." Save America's Clocks, 33 N.Y.3d at 207 (quoting
Pell v. Bd. of Educ. of Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester Cty., 34N.
Where, as here, the administrative process results in a superseding determination, a re-
quest for Article 78 review of the earlier decision becomes academic. See, e.g., 985 Fifth Ave. LLC v. Reiss, 8 A.D.3d 11, 12 (1st Dep't 2004); see also Moisset v. Travis, 97 N.Y.2d 673,674 (2001) (affirming Appellate Division's dismissal of appeal as moot where the parole agency made a new determi-
nation during the pendency of the appeal). The "issuance of a superseding appeal decision sub-
sequent to the determination that petitioner seeks to have annulled" renders the proceeding
moot. Grand Imperial, LLC v. City of N. Y., Index No. 157674/2017, 2018 WL 2689539, at *1 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. June 1, 2018); see also Santiago v. Berlin, 111 A.D.3d 487, 487 (1st Dep't 2013) (same).
Petitioners' claims concern the 3/28/2023 Appeal Decision, which they allege was arbitrary and capricious because it "entirely failed to set forth a basis for the decision." (See Verified Pet.
<JI 31) However, after the commencement of this proceeding, Respondent rescinded the chal-
lenged determination and issued the 8/28/2023 Notice, which superseded the earlier determina- tions. The 8/28/2023 Notice set forth specific grounds for denial of the LRAP Application, namely,
157545/2023 Village Ventura Associates LLC v. The State of N. Y. Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Page 3 of 5 Mot. Seq. No. 001
!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/04/2025 03:05 PM INDEX NO. 157545/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/04/2025
that the Apartment's rental amount exceeded 150% of the fair market rent for an apartment of that size. (See Chawla Aff. ':[':I[ 22-23; id. Ex.Bat p. 1) Upon its issuance, the determination reflected in the 8/28/2023 Notice became the only Respondent determination that Petitioners could properly subject to Article 78 review. Because the 1/12/2023 Notice and the 3/28/2023 Appeal De- cision have been rescinded by Respondent, there is no longer any relief Petitioners can obtain with respect to the challenged determination. As such, "petitioner[s'] rights will no longer be
affected by the determination of the [Verified Petition] and the judgment will not have an imme- diate consequence for [them]." Klein v. N. Y.C. Admin. for Children's Servs., 84 A.D.3d 689, 690 (1st Dep't 2011).
Once again, the Court notes that Petitioners have not filed any opposition to Respondent's cross-motion.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Respondent's cross-motion to dismiss (Seq. No. 1) is GRANTED, and
Petitioners' Notice of Petition (Seq. No. 1) is accordingly DENIED as moot; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Verified Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED, and
this proceeding is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondent shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon Petition-
ers and upon the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office with notice of entry within twenty (20) days thereof; and it is further
ORDERED that service upon the Clerk of Court shall be made in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electroni- cally Filed Cases (Revised August 15, 2019); 1 and it is further
ORDERED that any requested relief not expressly addressed herein has been considered
and is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall mark Motion Sequence No. 1 decided in all court records; . I
and it is further
!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/04/2025 03:05 PM INDEX NO. 157545/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/04/2025
ORDERED that the Clerk shall mark this proceeding disposed in all court records.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
Footnotes
[1] of 5 [* 1] 157545/2023 Village Ventura Associates LLC v. The State of N. Y. Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Page 2 of 5 Mot. Seq. No. 001
[2] of 5 [* 2]
[3] of 5 [* 3] 1 The protocols are available at https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/ljd/supctmanh/Efil-protocol.pdf. 157545/2023 Village Ventura Associates LLC v. The State of N. Y. Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Page 4 of 5 Mot. Seq. No. 001
[4] of 5 [* 4] February 4, 2025 DATE SH DDEEN A. ALLY, A.J.S.C. CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION MOTION: GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER CROSS-MOTION: X GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT ::;:R:::EE 157545/2023 Village Ventura Associates LLC v. The State of N.Y. Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Page 5 of 5 Mot. Seq. No. 001
[5] of 5 [* 5]