Fazio v. Joy

New York Court of Appeals

Fazio v. Joy

444 N.E.2d 990, 58 N.Y.2d 674, 458 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3904

New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 18, 1982·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (89 AD2d 604). We emphasize that the proper standard of review of determinations by the Commissioner of Department of Housing Preservation and Development is a “rational basis” test (Matter of Asen Bros. & Brook v Leventhal, 54 NY2d 839; Matter of Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322, 329).

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (89 AD2d 604). We emphasize that the proper standard of review of determinations by the Commissioner of Department of Housing Preservation and Development is a “rational basis” test (Matter of Asen Bros. & Brook v Leventhal, 54 NY2d 839; Matter of Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322, 329).

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Fazio v. Joy, 444 N.E.2d 990, 58 N.Y.2d 674, 458 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3904 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

444 N.E.2d 990 (Fazio v. Joy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related