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

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

DecidedJune 25, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 355 (Jemrock Realty Co. v. Anderson) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 355, 644 N.Y.2d 263, 644 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jemrock-realty-co-v-anderson-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack