Associated Builders & Owners of Greater New York, Inc. v. Rent Guidelines Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Associated Builders & Owners of Greater New York, Inc. v. Rent Guidelines Board

51 A.D.2d 906, 381 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11563

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 906 (Associated Builders & Owners of Greater New York, Inc. v. Rent Guidelines 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

Associated Builders & Owners of Greater New York, Inc. v. Rent Guidelines Board, 51 A.D.2d 906, 381 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, on July 31, 1975 and July 30, 1975, respectively, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Special Term, -without costs or disbursements. The orders appealed from (two similar proceedings were consolidated for disposition, hence, two entry dates) denied appellants’ cross motions to dismiss the supplemental petitions for failure to state a cause of action. Special Term did not treat the application as one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [c]). We have, therefore, considered only the allegations of the petition and not the merits. In our view the supplemental petitions are sufficient. (See Matter of Lakeland Water Dist. v Onondaga County Water Auth., 24 NY2d 400.) Concur—Murphy, J. P., Birns, Silver-man, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Orders entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, on July 31, 1975 and July 30, 1975, respectively, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Special Term, -without costs or disbursements. The orders appealed from (two similar proceedings were consolidated for disposition, hence, two entry dates) denied appellants’ cross motions to dismiss the supplemental petitions for failure to state a cause of action. Special Term did not treat the application as one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [c]). We have, therefore, considered only the allegations of the petition and not the merits. In our view the supplemental petitions are sufficient. (See Matter of Lakeland Water Dist. v Onondaga County Water Auth., 24 NY2d 400.) Concur—Murphy, J. P., Birns, Silver-man, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 906, 381 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/associated-builders-owners-of-greater-new-york-inc-v-rent-guidelines-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack