Berman v. Waverly Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berman v. Waverly Associates

19 A.D.3d 136, 795 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5928

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

DecidedJune 2, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.3d 136 (Berman v. Waverly Associates) 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

Berman v. Waverly Associates, 19 A.D.3d 136, 795 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5928 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered February 8, 2005, which denied as moot both plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint and defendants’ cross motion to stay enforcement of an order of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), but granted attorneys’ fees to plaintiff in connection with the proceeding, unanimously modified, on the law, the award of attorneys’ fees denied, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff improperly resorted to the procedure under CFLR 3213 to “enforce” an order of DHCR, and thus, an award of attorneys’ fees was inappropriate. The administrative order at issue was not an instrument for the payment of money only. A clearly delineated procedure existed (in DHCR Fact Sheet No. 16, Collecting Overcharges in Rent Stabilized Apartments in New York City) for entering a “final” order for rent overcharges as a judgment at the conclusion of judicial proceedings {see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2526.1 [e]). Concur—Sáxe, J.E, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered February 8, 2005, which denied as moot both plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint and defendants’ cross motion to stay enforcement of an order of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), but granted attorneys’ fees to plaintiff in connection with the proceeding, unanimously modified, on the law, the award of attorneys’ fees denied, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff improperly resorted to the procedure under CFLR 3213 to “enforce” an order of DHCR, and thus, an award of attorneys’ fees was inappropriate. The administrative order at issue was not an instrument for the payment of money only. A clearly delineated procedure existed (in DHCR Fact Sheet No. 16, Collecting Overcharges in Rent Stabilized Apartments in New York City) for entering a “final” order for rent overcharges as a judgment at the conclusion of judicial proceedings {see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2526.1 [e]). Concur—Sáxe, J.E, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 136, 795 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berman-v-waverly-associates-nyappdiv-2005.