Epar Realty Corp. v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Epar Realty Corp. v. Abrams

2 A.D.2d 682, 152 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5132

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

DecidedJune 4, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 682 (Epar Realty Corp. v. Abrams) 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

Epar Realty Corp. v. Abrams, 2 A.D.2d 682, 152 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to review a determination of the State Rent Administrator, the appeal is from an order denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The determination sought to be reviewed denied an application to decontrol two new dwelling units which were created by the conversion of a single larger unit. The Administrator held that one of the new units was decontrolled but that the other might not be decontrolled so long as it is occupied by a person who was found to be a tenant in possession at the time of the conversion (State Residential Rent Law, § 2, subd. 2, par. [g]; L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd.). Order affirmed, without. costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Wenzel, Acting P. J., and Murphy, J., dissent and vote to reverse the order appealed from, to annul the determination, and to remit the proceeding to the respondent for the issuance of an order of decontrol.

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

In a proceeding to review a determination of the State Rent Administrator, the appeal is from an order denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The determination sought to be reviewed denied an application to decontrol two new dwelling units which were created by the conversion of a single larger unit. The Administrator held that one of the new units was decontrolled but that the other might not be decontrolled so long as it is occupied by a person who was found to be a tenant in possession at the time of the conversion (State Residential Rent Law, § 2, subd. 2, par. [g]; L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd.). Order affirmed, without. costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Wenzel, Acting P. J., and Murphy, J., dissent and vote to reverse the order appealed from, to annul the determination, and to remit the proceeding to the respondent for the issuance of an order of decontrol.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 682, 152 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epar-realty-corp-v-abrams-nyappdiv-1956.