Bronx Park East Housing Co. v. Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bronx Park East Housing Co. v. Higgins

177 A.D.2d 457, 576 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18081

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 177 A.D.2d 457 (Bronx Park East Housing Co. v. Higgins) 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

Bronx Park East Housing Co. v. Higgins, 177 A.D.2d 457, 576 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18081 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered November 27, 1990, which denied respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition, and directed respondents to allow petitioner to proceed with the public information requirements of the Rules and Regulations for Dissolution of Limited-Profit and Limited-Dividend Housing Companies (9 NYCRR part 1750), is affirmed, without costs.

The case is governed by our decision in Matter of Columbus Park Corp. v Department of Hous. Preservation & Dev. (170 AD2d 145).

Respondents’ letter to the clerk of the court, dated October 11, 1991, is deemed a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, and, so considered, is granted, toward the end that the matter might be heard together with the appeal that has been taken in Columbus Park (supra). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Rubin, J., concurs on constraint of Matter of Columbus Park Corp. v Department of Hous. Preservation & Dev. (170 AD2d 145).

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered November 27, 1990, which denied respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition, and directed respondents to allow petitioner to proceed with the public information requirements of the Rules and Regulations for Dissolution of Limited-Profit and Limited-Dividend Housing Companies (9 NYCRR part 1750), is affirmed, without costs.

The case is governed by our decision in Matter of Columbus Park Corp. v Department of Hous. Preservation & Dev. (170 AD2d 145).

Respondents’ letter to the clerk of the court, dated October 11, 1991, is deemed a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, and, so considered, is granted, toward the end that the matter might be heard together with the appeal that has been taken in Columbus Park (supra). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Rubin, J., concurs on constraint of Matter of Columbus Park Corp. v Department of Hous. Preservation & Dev. (170 AD2d 145).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 457, 576 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bronx-park-east-housing-co-v-higgins-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack