Adler v. Kent Village Housing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adler v. Kent Village Housing Co.

306 A.D.2d 362, 760 N.Y.S.2d 857

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

DecidedJune 16, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 362 (Adler v. Kent Village Housing Co.) 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

Adler v. Kent Village Housing Co., 306 A.D.2d 362, 760 N.Y.S.2d 857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendants from investigating and adjudicating the plaintiffs’ status as successor tenants, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rings County (Jones, J.), dated March 8, 2002, which, among other things, granted the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the claims were not ripe for review.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“For a challenge to administrative action to be ripe, the administrative action sought to be reviewed must be final, and the anticipated harm caused by the action must be direct and immediate” (Weingarten v Town of Lewisboro, 77 NY2d 926, 928 [1991]). Here, the matter is not ripe for judicial review as “the claimed harm may be prevented or significantly ameliorated by further administrative action” (Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew v Barwick, 67 NY2d 510, 520 [1986], cert denied 479 US 985 [1986]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Rhausman, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendants from investigating and adjudicating the plaintiffs’ status as successor tenants, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rings County (Jones, J.), dated March 8, 2002, which, among other things, granted the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the claims were not ripe for review.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“For a challenge to administrative action to be ripe, the administrative action sought to be reviewed must be final, and the anticipated harm caused by the action must be direct and immediate” (Weingarten v Town of Lewisboro, 77 NY2d 926, 928 [1991]). Here, the matter is not ripe for judicial review as “the claimed harm may be prevented or significantly ameliorated by further administrative action” (Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew v Barwick, 67 NY2d 510, 520 [1986], cert denied 479 US 985 [1986]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Rhausman, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 362, 760 N.Y.S.2d 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adler-v-kent-village-housing-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack