Josephs v. Gabel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Josephs v. Gabel

26 A.D.2d 681, 272 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3637

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 681 (Josephs v. Gabel) 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

Josephs v. Gabel, 26 A.D.2d 681, 272 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review a determination of the City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator, which denied decontrol of certain apartments in petitioner’s building, petitioner appeals from a judgment (described in the notice of appeal as an “order”) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 8, 1964, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs. We agree with the Administrator’s determination that the subject apartments were not additional housing accommodations created by conversion and, therefore, were not decontrolled (cf. Matter of Vivana Realty Gorp. v. Abrams, 5 A D 2d 466, 470-471; Matter of Knight v. Herman, 18 A D 2d 809). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review a determination of the City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator, which denied decontrol of certain apartments in petitioner’s building, petitioner appeals from a judgment (described in the notice of appeal as an “order”) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 8, 1964, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs. We agree with the Administrator’s determination that the subject apartments were not additional housing accommodations created by conversion and, therefore, were not decontrolled (cf. Matter of Vivana Realty Gorp. v. Abrams, 5 A D 2d 466, 470-471; Matter of Knight v. Herman, 18 A D 2d 809). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 681, 272 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/josephs-v-gabel-nyappdiv-1966.