City of New York v. Unsafe Buildings, Rose-Polly Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. Unsafe Buildings, Rose-Polly Properties, Inc.

88 A.D.2d 924, 451 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17263

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

DecidedJune 7, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 924 (City of New York v. Unsafe Buildings, Rose-Polly Properties, Inc.) 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

City of New York v. Unsafe Buildings, Rose-Polly Properties, Inc., 88 A.D.2d 924, 451 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In proceedings pursuant to section C26-82.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York for the issuance of a precept directing that the Queens Borough Superintendent of Buildings abate the unsafe and dangerous conditions existing on certain premises by demolition of the structures thereon, the appeals are from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), dated February 5, 1981 and September 14, 1981, respectively, the first of which adhered to the court’s original decision dismissing the proceeding, upon certain conditions, and the second of which again denied petitioner’s request for the same relief. Order dated February 5, 1981, reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, petition granted and matter remitted ■ to Special Term for the issuance, forthwith, of a precept pursuant to section C2682.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Appeal from order dated September 14, 1981, dismissed, without costs or disbursements, in light of the determination on the appeal from the order dated February 5,1981. On this record we conclude that the subject structures and premises are structurally unsafe, dangerous and a fire hazard. Accordingly, the petition should have been granted. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In proceedings pursuant to section C26-82.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York for the issuance of a precept directing that the Queens Borough Superintendent of Buildings abate the unsafe and dangerous conditions existing on certain premises by demolition of the structures thereon, the appeals are from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), dated February 5, 1981 and September 14, 1981, respectively, the first of which adhered to the court’s original decision dismissing the proceeding, upon certain conditions, and the second of which again denied petitioner’s request for the same relief. Order dated February 5, 1981, reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, petition granted and matter remitted ■ to Special Term for the issuance, forthwith, of a precept pursuant to section C2682.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Appeal from order dated September 14, 1981, dismissed, without costs or disbursements, in light of the determination on the appeal from the order dated February 5,1981. On this record we conclude that the subject structures and premises are structurally unsafe, dangerous and a fire hazard. Accordingly, the petition should have been granted. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 924, 451 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-unsafe-buildings-rose-polly-properties-inc-nyappdiv-1982.