Kew Gardens Hills Housing Associates v. Office of Rent Control

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kew Gardens Hills Housing Associates v. Office of Rent Control

51 A.D.2d 702, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11146

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 702 (Kew Gardens Hills Housing Associates v. Office of Rent Control) 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

Kew Gardens Hills Housing Associates v. Office of Rent Control, 51 A.D.2d 702, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for reargument granted insofar as to direct respondent-appellant to serve and file new points on or before February 24, 1976; petitioner-respondent to file new points on or before March 2, 1976; with reply points, if any, to be served and filed on or before March 9, 1976. Any incorrect interpretation of the facts contained in this court’s memorandum decision was a result of the lack of analysis of all possible alternatives in the briefs submitted by counsel for both sides. We expect that, upon reargument, the briefs to be submitted will set forth the facts with clarity and that they focus upon the relevant issues to be determined. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Capozzoli and Lynch, JJ.

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

Motion for reargument granted insofar as to direct respondent-appellant to serve and file new points on or before February 24, 1976; petitioner-respondent to file new points on or before March 2, 1976; with reply points, if any, to be served and filed on or before March 9, 1976. Any incorrect interpretation of the facts contained in this court’s memorandum decision was a result of the lack of analysis of all possible alternatives in the briefs submitted by counsel for both sides. We expect that, upon reargument, the briefs to be submitted will set forth the facts with clarity and that they focus upon the relevant issues to be determined. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Capozzoli and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 702, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kew-gardens-hills-housing-associates-v-office-of-rent-control-nyappdiv-1976.