Jemrock Realty Co. v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jemrock Realty Co. v. Anderson

228 A.D.2d 355, 644 N.Y.2d 263, 644 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7339

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 25, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The rent reductions were imposed for service reductions, including an inoperative elevator, a defective fire door and improperly weather-sealed and non-maintained windows. The factual issues raised by petitioner were for the administrative agency to resolve, and the record reveals that the challenged determination of the agency has a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of 230 E. 52nd St. Assocs. v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 131 AD2d 349).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

The rent reductions were imposed for service reductions, including an inoperative elevator, a defective fire door and improperly weather-sealed and non-maintained windows. The factual issues raised by petitioner were for the administrative agency to resolve, and the record reveals that the challenged determination of the agency has a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of 230 E. 52nd St. Assocs. v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 131 AD2d 349).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Jemrock Realty Co. v. Anderson, 228 A.D.2d 355, 644 N.Y.2d 263, 644 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

228 A.D.2d 355 (Jemrock Realty Co. v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related