Matter of 160 Columbia Heights Corp. v. Joy, 42 N.Y.2d 963 (1977)

An agency’s interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference and will be upheld if reasonable and not irrational.

Summary

This case concerns whether the Rent Commissioner could adjust a previously granted rent increase related to housing rehabilitation with government-assisted financing. The tenants argued that the Commissioner was limited to a single rent increase. The Court of Appeals held that the Commissioner’s interpretation, allowing for adjustments to ensure an appropriate rent, was reasonable and consistent with the purpose of the regulation. The Court emphasized the deference owed to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations.

Facts

The petitioner tenants challenged a rent increase granted by the Rent Commissioner following rehabilitation of their housing accommodations, which was financed with government assistance. The Commissioner initially granted a rent increase but later adjusted it. The tenants protested, arguing that the Commissioner could only grant one such increase.

Procedural History

The Rent Commissioner denied the tenants’ protest. The Appellate Division reinstated the Commissioner’s order, effectively denying the protest. The tenants appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Rent Commissioner, after granting a rent increase for rehabilitation with government-assisted financing, is barred from making subsequent adjustments to that increase.
2. Whether the tenants were entitled to notice of the rent increase under the relevant regulations.

Holding

1. No, because the relevant statutes and regulations, when read in context and considering their purpose, allow for adjustments to ensure the rent increase is “appropriate.”
2. No, because the increase was properly granted under section 33.9 of the regulations, not section 33.5, which would require notice.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the language in section Y51-5.0 (subd g, par [1]) of the Administrative Code, referring to “individual adjustment of maximum rents,” means that each adjustment should be considered separately, not that only one adjustment is permitted. Regarding section 33.9 of the Rent, Eviction and Rehabilitation Regulations, the Court acknowledged the use of the singular term “an appropriate adjustment.” However, referencing section 35 of the General Construction Law, the Court noted that singular terms include the plural. The Court stated, “Petitioners’ construction limiting the commissioner to but one increase ignores the word ‘appropriate’ and the purpose behind the rehabilitation provision…”

The Court emphasized that the Commissioner’s interpretation of the regulation was reasonable, stating: “When the three words on which petitioners rely are read in context and in light of the purpose of the regulation, the commissioner’s construction of the regulation is clearly reasonable”. The Court further noted, “It is, moreover, hornbook law that the construction given statutes and regulations by the agency responsible for their administration will, if not irrational or unreasonable, be upheld.” Citing Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434, 438. The court found that the rent increase was granted under section 33.9 and not under section 33.5, thus no notice was required.