L'Antiquaire & The Connoisseur, Inc. v. State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

156 A.D.2d 319, 549 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16391
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 28, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 319 (L'Antiquaire & The Connoisseur, Inc. v. 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
L'Antiquaire & The Connoisseur, Inc. v. State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 156 A.D.2d 319, 549 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Jawn A. Sandifer, J.), entered on March 7, 1989, which denied petitioner’s application to annul a determination by respondent State Division of Housing and Community Renewal and directed the landlord to offer certain named tenants a renewal lease, is unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Tenant Kevan Pickens, having in no way been aggrieved by respondent agency’s determination, was not required to commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a ruling in his favor. Moreover, respondent was, based upon the evidence before it, clearly warranted in finding that petitioner had not established its good faith in proposing permanently to withdraw occupied housing accommodations from the rental market on the grounds that the owner had not committed itself to a definite plan, demonstrated that the intended alterations would comply with municipal requirements or that it possessed adequate financial capacity to undertake such renova[320]*320tions. Certainly, there is no indication that respondent’s determination is unreasonable, irrational or otherwise constitutes an abuse of discretion (Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434; see also, Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784). Accordingly, the Supreme Court appropriately directed that the landlord offer the named tenants a renewal lease. Concur —Ross, J. P., Asch, Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Related

Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. Metropolitan Avenue Corp.
148 Misc. 2d 956 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 A.D.2d 319, 549 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lantiquaire-the-connoisseur-inc-v-state-division-of-housing-nyappdiv-1989.