140 West 57th Street Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

140 West 57th Street Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

202 A.D.2d 164, 610 N.Y.S.2d 763

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 1, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 164 (140 West 57th Street Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

140 West 57th Street Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 202 A.D.2d 164, 610 N.Y.S.2d 763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated December 9, 1992, which, after a hearing, found that the subject apartment is subject to the Local Emergency Housing Rent Control Act, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Herman Cahn, J.], entered July 6, 1993), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s finding that, though the tenant used some portion of his apartment as a photography studio, his use was predominantly residential, and that finding may not be disturbed by this Court (see, Confederated Props. v Nosek, 2 AD2d 383, 384).

[165]*165We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Determination of the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated December 9, 1992, which, after a hearing, found that the subject apartment is subject to the Local Emergency Housing Rent Control Act, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Herman Cahn, J.], entered July 6, 1993), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s finding that, though the tenant used some portion of his apartment as a photography studio, his use was predominantly residential, and that finding may not be disturbed by this Court (see, Confederated Props. v Nosek, 2 AD2d 383, 384).

[165]*165We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 164, 610 N.Y.S.2d 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/140-west-57th-street-corp-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack