Jemrock Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jemrock Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

167 A.D.2d 165, 562 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13275

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 165 (Jemrock Realty Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) 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 Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 167 A.D.2d 165, 562 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, J.), entered February 7, 1990, which dismissed a petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul an order by respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal which found an overcharge by the petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

The issues raised in this proceeding, including the argument

[166]*166that a 1984 amendment to Rent Stabilization Law § 26-516 (g) should have been applied by respondent, were disposed of in a recent appeal to which petitioner was a party, and require no further explication. (See, Matter of Jemrock Realty Co. v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 166 AD2d 222.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, J.), entered February 7, 1990, which dismissed a petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul an order by respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal which found an overcharge by the petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

The issues raised in this proceeding, including the argument

[166]*166that a 1984 amendment to Rent Stabilization Law § 26-516 (g) should have been applied by respondent, were disposed of in a recent appeal to which petitioner was a party, and require no further explication. (See, Matter of Jemrock Realty Co. v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 166 AD2d 222.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 165, 562 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jemrock-realty-corp-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack