Pinky Sohn, Respondent, v Lucretia Calderon et al., Appellants, and State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Intervenor-Appellant. In the Matter of Pinky Sohn et al., Respondents, v State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Appellant, and Lucretia Calderon et al., Intervenors-Appellants.
Argued September 5, 1991;
decided October 15, 1991
POINTS OF COUNSEL
Herbert Semmel and David A. Weinraub for Lucretia Calderon and others, appellants.
I. The Division of Housing and Community Renewal has exclusive jurisdiction to grant certificates of eviction based on demolition. Alternatively, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction of a complex, technical matter of Statewide application which has been delegated by law to DHCR. (520 E. 81st St. Assocs. v Lenox Hill Hosp., 38 NY2d 525; Matter of Sipal Realty Corp. v Dankers, 8 NY2d 319; Matter of Whitney Museum of Am. Art v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 139 AD2d 444, 73 NY2d 938; Matter of Public Serv. Commn. v Norton, 304 NY 522; Garay v Todros, 282 App Div 126; Capital Tel. Co. v Pattersonville Tel. Co., 56 NY2d 11; Flacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys., 69 NY2d 355; Englehardt v Consolidated Rail Corp., 756 F2d 1368; Far E. Conference v United States, 342 US 570; Hansen v Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 689 F2d 707.) II. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the Department of Housing Preservation and Development to issue a certificate of no harassment and erroneously applied the provisions of the Clinton Special District Zoning Resolution. III. The trial court erred in its interpretation of the provisions on economic hardship which are a prerequisite to obtaining a certificate of eviction based on demolition. (Matter of New Year Realty Corp. v