525 Park Avenue Associates v. De Hoyas

New York Court of Appeals

525 Park Avenue Associates v. De Hoyas

504 N.E.2d 388, 69 N.Y.2d 692, 512 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21307

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 19, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 504 N.E.2d 388 (525 Park Avenue Associates v. De Hoyas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

525 Park Avenue Associates v. De Hoyas, 504 N.E.2d 388, 69 N.Y.2d 692, 512 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21307 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum of that court (121 AD2d 908). Moreover, we hold that the filing of a Rent Stabilization Code § 54 (D) application does not preserve a landlord’s right to refuse a renewal of a lease on nonprimary residence grounds, pursuant to section 54 (E) where no notice of such intent has been timely given (see, Golub v Frank, 65 NY2d 900; compare, Crow v 83rd St. Assoc., 68 NY2d 796 [Omnibus Housing Act (L 1983, ch 403) did not implicitly repeal the Golub notice requirement of Rent Stabilization Code § 60]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum of that court (121 AD2d 908). Moreover, we hold that the filing of a Rent Stabilization Code § 54 (D) application does not preserve a landlord’s right to refuse a renewal of a lease on nonprimary residence grounds, pursuant to section 54 (E) where no notice of such intent has been timely given (see, Golub v Frank, 65 NY2d 900; compare, Crow v 83rd St. Assoc., 68 NY2d 796 [Omnibus Housing Act (L 1983, ch 403) did not implicitly repeal the Golub notice requirement of Rent Stabilization Code § 60]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 N.E.2d 388, 69 N.Y.2d 692, 512 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/525-park-avenue-associates-v-de-hoyas-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack