Leight v. W7879 LLC

New York Court of Appeals

Leight v. W7879 LLC

48 N.E.3d 960, 27 N.Y.3d 929

New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 24, 2016·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary. Plaintiff John H. Masten [930] failed to establish that his apartment, which was deregulated in 2000 by an unchallenged order of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, became re-regulated when he executed a renewal lease at market rate.

Concur: Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary. Plaintiff John H. Masten [930] failed to establish that his apartment, which was deregulated in 2000 by an unchallenged order of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, became re-regulated when he executed a renewal lease at market rate.

Concur: Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia.

Leight v. W7879 LLC, 48 N.E.3d 960, 27 N.Y.3d 929 (N.Y. 2016).

Pincite

48 N.E.3d 960 (Leight v. W7879 LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related