Connors v. New York City Loft Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Connors v. New York City Loft Board

57 A.D.3d 447, 870 N.Y.2d 288

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 447 (Connors v. New York City Loft Board) 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

Connors v. New York City Loft Board, 57 A.D.3d 447, 870 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Respondent’s findings are supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 230-231 [1974]). Indeed, rather than showing unreasonable interference by the owner, the record shows that petitioners sought at every juncture to obstruct and delay the legalization work that the owner had undertaken (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 284; 29 RCNY 2-01). No basis exists to disturb [448]*448respondent’s decision not to impose a fine for the single sustained allegation of unreasonable interference (cf. 29 RCNY 2-01 [h]), which the ALJ described as a “relatively minor” matter that the owner was willing to correct, or the ALJ’s findings of credibility. We have considered petitioners’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.

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

Respondent’s findings are supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 230-231 [1974]). Indeed, rather than showing unreasonable interference by the owner, the record shows that petitioners sought at every juncture to obstruct and delay the legalization work that the owner had undertaken (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 284; 29 RCNY 2-01). No basis exists to disturb [448]*448respondent’s decision not to impose a fine for the single sustained allegation of unreasonable interference (cf. 29 RCNY 2-01 [h]), which the ALJ described as a “relatively minor” matter that the owner was willing to correct, or the ALJ’s findings of credibility. We have considered petitioners’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 447, 870 N.Y.2d 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connors-v-new-york-city-loft-board-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack