Eastern Pork Products Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eastern Pork Products Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

210 A.D.2d 38, 620 N.Y.S.2d 940

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 38 (Eastern Pork Products Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) 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

Eastern Pork Products Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 210 A.D.2d 38, 620 N.Y.S.2d 940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis GangelJacob, J.), entered August 2, 1993, which denied petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to CPLR article 86, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although petitioner succeeded in an earlier CPLR article 78 proceeding in annulling respondent’s determination that the apartment in question is subject to rent stabilization (187 AD2d 320), the matter was remanded to respondent for a de novo determination of the facts relevant to rent stabilization status, and thus the IAS Court correctly held that no final judgment has yet been obtained as would permit an application pursuant to CPLR article 86 (cf., Matter of Pelaez v Waterfront Commn. of N. Y. Harbor, 48 NY2d 1021). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis GangelJacob, J.), entered August 2, 1993, which denied petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to CPLR article 86, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although petitioner succeeded in an earlier CPLR article 78 proceeding in annulling respondent’s determination that the apartment in question is subject to rent stabilization (187 AD2d 320), the matter was remanded to respondent for a de novo determination of the facts relevant to rent stabilization status, and thus the IAS Court correctly held that no final judgment has yet been obtained as would permit an application pursuant to CPLR article 86 (cf., Matter of Pelaez v Waterfront Commn. of N. Y. Harbor, 48 NY2d 1021). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 38, 620 N.Y.S.2d 940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eastern-pork-products-co-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack