Harper Management Co. v. Conciliation & Appeals Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harper Management Co. v. Conciliation & Appeals Board

70 A.D.2d 848, 418 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12413

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

DecidedJune 26, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 70 A.D.2d 848 (Harper Management Co. v. Conciliation & Appeals Board) 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

Harper Management Co. v. Conciliation & Appeals Board, 70 A.D.2d 848, 418 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 27, 1978, which granted petitioner’s motion to direct respondent to process its application for a comparative hardship increase to the extent of setting the matter down for a hearing to determine whether respondent willfully and deliberately delayed processing petitioner’s application is dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. The order here appealed from is an intermediate order in an article 78 proceeding. As such, it is not appealable of right and nothing in the record indicates that permission to appeal has been granted (CPLR 5701, subd [b], par 1; subd [c]). Moreover, since the issue of willful and deliberate delay falls beyond respondent’s competence, Special Term set that issue down for a hearing before the court. Accordingly, the proviso of subdivision b of section Y51-9.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York which exempts "any order of the court remitting the proceeding to the city rent agency” from the provisions of "paragraph (1) of subdivision b of section 5701 of the civil practice law and rules” and which permits that agency, at its election, to review by appeal a determination so made, is not applicable (emphasis supplied). Additionally, we note that had we reached the merits, we would have affirmed. Concur — Fein, J. P., Sandler, Bloom, Lane and Silverman, JJ.

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

— Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 27, 1978, which granted petitioner’s motion to direct respondent to process its application for a comparative hardship increase to the extent of setting the matter down for a hearing to determine whether respondent willfully and deliberately delayed processing petitioner’s application is dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. The order here appealed from is an intermediate order in an article 78 proceeding. As such, it is not appealable of right and nothing in the record indicates that permission to appeal has been granted (CPLR 5701, subd [b], par 1; subd [c]). Moreover, since the issue of willful and deliberate delay falls beyond respondent’s competence, Special Term set that issue down for a hearing before the court. Accordingly, the proviso of subdivision b of section Y51-9.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York which exempts "any order of the court remitting the proceeding to the city rent agency” from the provisions of "paragraph (1) of subdivision b of section 5701 of the civil practice law and rules” and which permits that agency, at its election, to review by appeal a determination so made, is not applicable (emphasis supplied). Additionally, we note that had we reached the merits, we would have affirmed. Concur — Fein, J. P., Sandler, Bloom, Lane and Silverman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 848, 418 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-management-co-v-conciliation-appeals-board-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack