Cuccia v. Weaver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cuccia v. Weaver

9 A.D.2d 689, 191 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6647

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.2d 689 (Cuccia 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

Cuccia v. Weaver, 9 A.D.2d 689, 191 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the State Rent Administrator from an order which annulled his determination denying decontrol and directed him to declare that the subject premises are decontrolled. Order reversed, with costs, and proceeding dismissed, without costs. In our opinion, the State Rent Administrator’s finding that the subject structure was one four-family house, rather than two two-family houses, was supported by substantial evidence and had a rational basis (cf. Matter of Bobal Holding Corp. v. McGoldrick, 285 App. Div. 1177; Matter of Castleton Estates V. Abrams, 1 A D 2d 390). Consequently, his determination may not be disturbed by the courts (Matter of Park East Land Corp. v. Finkelstein, 299 N. Y. 70, 75; Matter of Avon Bar & Grill v. O’Connell, 301 N. Y. 150, 153; Matter of Boseo v. Weaver, 5 A D 2d 879). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the State Rent Administrator from an order which annulled his determination denying decontrol and directed him to declare that the subject premises are decontrolled. Order reversed, with costs, and proceeding dismissed, without costs. In our opinion, the State Rent Administrator’s finding that the subject structure was one four-family house, rather than two two-family houses, was supported by substantial evidence and had a rational basis (cf. Matter of Bobal Holding Corp. v. McGoldrick, 285 App. Div. 1177; Matter of Castleton Estates V. Abrams, 1 A D 2d 390). Consequently, his determination may not be disturbed by the courts (Matter of Park East Land Corp. v. Finkelstein, 299 N. Y. 70, 75; Matter of Avon Bar & Grill v. O’Connell, 301 N. Y. 150, 153; Matter of Boseo v. Weaver, 5 A D 2d 879). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 689, 191 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuccia-v-weaver-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack