239, 243 & 247 Corp. v. Berman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

239, 243 & 247 Corp. v. Berman

29 A.D.2d 924, 288 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4308

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

DecidedApril 4, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 924 (239, 243 & 247 Corp. v. Berman) 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

239, 243 & 247 Corp. v. Berman, 29 A.D.2d 924, 288 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment granting petitioner’s motion and directing the City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator to issue orders of eviction and subdivision unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter is remanded to the City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator to proceed in accordance with the remittitur of the Court of Appeals, with $50 costs and disbursements to the appellant. In this controversy, the Court of Appeals limited its decision to the question of whether there was a sufficient number of rooms to enable the landlord to avail himself of the relief sought. It held, however, that “ The Administrator did not reach the point of exercising her discretion concerning whether this project was good, bad or indifferent or whether the relocation plans for the tenants were adequate”. (Matter of 239, 243 and 247 Corp. v. Gabel (19 N Y 2d 558, 561.) The Court of Appeals ordered “the judgment of Special Term reinstated”. That judgment decreed “ That the proceeding herein, instituted by said Petitioner * * * is remanded to Frederick S. Berman, as City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator, * * * for further consideration not inconsistent with the opinion of the court.” The order here appealed from would prohibit the Rent Administrator from taking the very action the Court of Appeals ordered the Administrator to take. Consequently, it must be reversed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, MeGivem and Rabin, JJ.

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

Judgment granting petitioner’s motion and directing the City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator to issue orders of eviction and subdivision unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter is remanded to the City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator to proceed in accordance with the remittitur of the Court of Appeals, with $50 costs and disbursements to the appellant. In this controversy, the Court of Appeals limited its decision to the question of whether there was a sufficient number of rooms to enable the landlord to avail himself of the relief sought. It held, however, that “ The Administrator did not reach the point of exercising her discretion concerning whether this project was good, bad or indifferent or whether the relocation plans for the tenants were adequate”. (Matter of 239, 243 and 247 Corp. v. Gabel (19 N Y 2d 558, 561.) The Court of Appeals ordered “the judgment of Special Term reinstated”. That judgment decreed “ That the proceeding herein, instituted by said Petitioner * * * is remanded to Frederick S. Berman, as City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator, * * * for further consideration not inconsistent with the opinion of the court.” The order here appealed from would prohibit the Rent Administrator from taking the very action the Court of Appeals ordered the Administrator to take. Consequently, it must be reversed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, MeGivem and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 924, 288 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/239-243-247-corp-v-berman-nyappdiv-1968.