Ballance v. Finkel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ballance v. Finkel

281 A.D.2d 320, 722 N.Y.S.2d 154, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3038

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 320 (Ballance v. Finkel) 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

Ballance v. Finkel, 281 A.D.2d 320, 722 N.Y.S.2d 154, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered August 3, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondent Housing Authority to assign him the highest priority for a transfer from his current public housing apartment to another apartment in the same development, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

At oral argument, petitioner’s counsel advised that insofar as petitioner sought assignment to a higher priority, the proceeding is now moot. Petitioner’s claim for money damages, apparently based on breach of the warranty of habitability, is not incidental to his claim that he should have been assigned a higher transfer priority, and therefore was properly dismissed (CPLR 7806; see, Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 235-237). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered August 3, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondent Housing Authority to assign him the highest priority for a transfer from his current public housing apartment to another apartment in the same development, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

At oral argument, petitioner’s counsel advised that insofar as petitioner sought assignment to a higher priority, the proceeding is now moot. Petitioner’s claim for money damages, apparently based on breach of the warranty of habitability, is not incidental to his claim that he should have been assigned a higher transfer priority, and therefore was properly dismissed (CPLR 7806; see, Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 235-237). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 320, 722 N.Y.S.2d 154, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballance-v-finkel-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack