Dominguez v. Sanders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dominguez v. Sanders

215 A.D.2d 557, 627 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5063

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

DecidedMay 15, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 557 (Dominguez v. Sanders) 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

Dominguez v. Sanders, 215 A.D.2d 557, 627 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5063 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated October 16, 1991, which affirmed a determination of the District Rent Administrator, insofar as that determination is adverse to them, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated November 20, 1992, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter DHCR) dated October 16, 1991, was not arbitrary and capricious (see, CPLR 7803 [3]). The DHCR properly determined that the petitioners were precluded from relitigating their claim that the landlord blocked off two rooms of their four-room apartment (see, Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 499). Balletta, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated October 16, 1991, which affirmed a determination of the District Rent Administrator, insofar as that determination is adverse to them, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated November 20, 1992, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter DHCR) dated October 16, 1991, was not arbitrary and capricious (see, CPLR 7803 [3]). The DHCR properly determined that the petitioners were precluded from relitigating their claim that the landlord blocked off two rooms of their four-room apartment (see, Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 499). Balletta, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 557, 627 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominguez-v-sanders-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack