Burlich v. Weaver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burlich v. Weaver

3 A.D.2d 673, 158 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6678

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 673 (Burlich v. Weaver) 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

Burlich v. Weaver, 3 A.D.2d 673, 158 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

On February 20, 1956 the State Rent Administrator affirmed separate orders of the local rent administrator in Brooklyn containing prior opinions to the effect that the proposed installation [674]*674by the landlord of a central heating and hot-water system in two cold-water, heatless multiple dwellings would result in a substantial rehabilitation of the buildings and that, upon completion of the improvement and upon application by the landlord for an increase in rent, an order would be made increasing the rent for each apartment by a specified amount. Ten of the 12 tenants involved instituted this proceeding to review respondent's determination. The appeal is from an order of the Special Term denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. (Matter of Heissenbuttal v. Abrams, 286 App. Div. 646.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.

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

On February 20, 1956 the State Rent Administrator affirmed separate orders of the local rent administrator in Brooklyn containing prior opinions to the effect that the proposed installation [674]*674by the landlord of a central heating and hot-water system in two cold-water, heatless multiple dwellings would result in a substantial rehabilitation of the buildings and that, upon completion of the improvement and upon application by the landlord for an increase in rent, an order would be made increasing the rent for each apartment by a specified amount. Ten of the 12 tenants involved instituted this proceeding to review respondent's determination. The appeal is from an order of the Special Term denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. (Matter of Heissenbuttal v. Abrams, 286 App. Div. 646.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 673, 158 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burlich-v-weaver-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack