37 West Realty Co. v. New York City Loft Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

37 West Realty Co. v. New York City Loft Board

72 A.D.3d 406, 896 N.Y.S.2d 870

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

DecidedApril 1, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 406 (37 West Realty Co. v. New York City Loft Board) 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

37 West Realty Co. v. New York City Loft Board, 72 A.D.3d 406, 896 N.Y.S.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered June 25, 2009, dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition reinstated, without prejudice to the assertion of defenses.

The tenants whose units were specifically addressed in respondent’s order, which reduced or vacated an administrative law judge’s findings in their favor with regard to rent overcharges, were necessary parties whose rights may be directly and inequitably affected by the judgment (CPLR 1001 [a]). As respondent concedes, the tenants were indisputably subject to jurisdiction, and should be joined even if the limitations period has expired (see Windy Ridge Farm v Assessor of Town of Shandaken, 11 NY3d 725 [2008]), without prejudice to interposing such a defense (see Friedland v Hickox, 60 AD3d 426 [2009]). It is unnecessary at this point to consider the “relation back” doctrine. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Friedman, McGuire and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered June 25, 2009, dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition reinstated, without prejudice to the assertion of defenses.

The tenants whose units were specifically addressed in respondent’s order, which reduced or vacated an administrative law judge’s findings in their favor with regard to rent overcharges, were necessary parties whose rights may be directly and inequitably affected by the judgment (CPLR 1001 [a]). As respondent concedes, the tenants were indisputably subject to jurisdiction, and should be joined even if the limitations period has expired (see Windy Ridge Farm v Assessor of Town of Shandaken, 11 NY3d 725 [2008]), without prejudice to interposing such a defense (see Friedland v Hickox, 60 AD3d 426 [2009]). It is unnecessary at this point to consider the “relation back” doctrine. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Friedman, McGuire and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 406, 896 N.Y.S.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/37-west-realty-co-v-new-york-city-loft-board-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack