Busbee v. Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Busbee v. Higgins

221 A.D.2d 177, 633 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11530

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 177 (Busbee 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

Busbee v. Higgins, 221 A.D.2d 177, 633 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered January 3, 1994, which denied respondent-appellant’s motion to renew with respect to two prior orders of the same court and Justice entered February 21, 1991 and March 25, 1992, which had, in pertinent part, deemed petitioner’s Fair Market Rent Appeal to be timely filed, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying respondent-appellant-landlord’s motion to renew as movant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for not previously submitting to respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal its DC-2 form in conjunction with petitioner’s Fair Market Rent Appeal (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). The form was ultimately located in landlord’s own stored file. This proceeding has now been pending since 1984. It is time for it to be put to rest. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman 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 (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered January 3, 1994, which denied respondent-appellant’s motion to renew with respect to two prior orders of the same court and Justice entered February 21, 1991 and March 25, 1992, which had, in pertinent part, deemed petitioner’s Fair Market Rent Appeal to be timely filed, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying respondent-appellant-landlord’s motion to renew as movant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for not previously submitting to respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal its DC-2 form in conjunction with petitioner’s Fair Market Rent Appeal (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). The form was ultimately located in landlord’s own stored file. This proceeding has now been pending since 1984. It is time for it to be put to rest. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 177, 633 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/busbee-v-higgins-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack