In re the Dormitory Authority of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Dormitory Authority of New York

223 A.D.2d 431, 636 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 344

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 431 (In re the Dormitory Authority of New York) 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

In re the Dormitory Authority of New York, 223 A.D.2d 431, 636 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered August 1, 1995, which granted the petition for condemnation of the subject property, with related relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Tenants’ challenge to petitioner’s determination was untimely under EDPL 204. The tenants’ claim that this statute’s provision for service by publication is unconstitutional is improperly raised for the first time on appeal and made without the notice to the Attorney-General required by Executive Law § 71 (see, Matter of A & J Produce Corp. v Commissioner of Fin. of City of N. Y., 199 AD2d 99, lv denied 86 NY2d 701). In any event, such claim is without merit (see, Matter of De Vito v City of Troy, 72 AD2d 866). We have considered appellants’ remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered August 1, 1995, which granted the petition for condemnation of the subject property, with related relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Tenants’ challenge to petitioner’s determination was untimely under EDPL 204. The tenants’ claim that this statute’s provision for service by publication is unconstitutional is improperly raised for the first time on appeal and made without the notice to the Attorney-General required by Executive Law § 71 (see, Matter of A & J Produce Corp. v Commissioner of Fin. of City of N. Y., 199 AD2d 99, lv denied 86 NY2d 701). In any event, such claim is without merit (see, Matter of De Vito v City of Troy, 72 AD2d 866). We have considered appellants’ remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 431, 636 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-dormitory-authority-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack