Korein v. Conciliation & Appeals Board

New York Court of Appeals

Korein v. Conciliation & Appeals Board

443 N.E.2d 473, 57 N.Y.2d 938, 457 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3810

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 443 N.E.2d 473 (Korein v. Conciliation & Appeals Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Korein v. Conciliation & Appeals Board, 443 N.E.2d 473, 57 N.Y.2d 938, 457 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3810 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Whether the services provided by the landlord after March 15, 1976 conformed to the prior mandate of the Conciliation and Appeals Board was a question of fact, the board’s resolution of which, not being erroneous as a matter of law, is not subject to challenge in the courts (Fresh Meadows Assoc. v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 88 Misc 2d 1003, 1004, affd 55 AD2d 559, affd 42 NY2d 925). Nor is there any basis for judicial disturbance of the penalty imposed (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Whether the services provided by the landlord after March 15, 1976 conformed to the prior mandate of the Conciliation and Appeals Board was a question of fact, the board’s resolution of which, not being erroneous as a matter of law, is not subject to challenge in the courts (Fresh Meadows Assoc. v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 88 Misc 2d 1003, 1004, affd 55 AD2d 559, affd 42 NY2d 925). Nor is there any basis for judicial disturbance of the penalty imposed (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 N.E.2d 473, 57 N.Y.2d 938, 457 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/korein-v-conciliation-appeals-board-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack