Hoan Holding Co. v. Joy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoan Holding Co. v. Joy

92 A.D.2d 466, 459 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16662

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.2d 466 (Hoan Holding Co. v. Joy) 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

Hoan Holding Co. v. Joy, 92 A.D.2d 466, 459 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinions

— Judgment entered June 14, 1982 in Supreme Court, New York County (Edwards, J.), denying petitioner’s application for vacatur of a determination of the Commissioner of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, and dismissing the CPLR article 78 petition, affirmed for the reasons stated at Special Term, without costs. There was a rational basis for the commissioner’s determination that petitioner failed to carry its burden of showing continuous owner occupancy for a one-year period. The dissent’s citation to Wittlin v Rent Control Div., Dept, of Housing Preservation & Dev. of City ofN. Y. (89 AD2d 603, affd 58 NY2d 723), is inapposite because there was no question there of the fact of owner occupancy, but only the validity of the “report of decontrol,” (untimely filed) and the effect of a prior decontrol of another apartment. Concur — Carro, Silverman, Fein and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Judgment entered June 14, 1982 in Supreme Court, New York County (Edwards, J.), denying petitioner’s application for vacatur of a determination of the Commissioner of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, and dismissing the CPLR article 78 petition, affirmed for the reasons stated at Special Term, without costs. There was a rational basis for the commissioner’s determination that petitioner failed to carry its burden of showing continuous owner occupancy for a one-year period. The dissent’s citation to Wittlin v Rent Control Div., Dept, of Housing Preservation & Dev. of City ofN. Y. (89 AD2d 603, affd 58 NY2d 723), is inapposite because there was no question there of the fact of owner occupancy, but only the validity of the “report of decontrol,” (untimely filed) and the effect of a prior decontrol of another apartment. Concur — Carro, Silverman, Fein and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.2d 466, 459 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoan-holding-co-v-joy-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack