Levine v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levine v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

243 A.D.2d 373, 663 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10785

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 373 (Levine v. New York 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

Levine v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 243 A.D.2d 373, 663 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered March 20, 1997, dismissing petitioner tenant’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent agency’s award to intervenor landlord of a major capital improvement rent increase, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition was properly dismissed on the ground that the evidence petitioner relies on was offered for the first time in his Petition for Administrative Review although it had been available to him for two years and could have been submitted to the Rent Administrator (9 NYCRR 2529.6; Matter of Birdoff & Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 204 AD2d 630; Matter of 985 Fifth Ave. v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 171 AD2d 572, 574-575, lv denied 78 NY2d 861). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Nardelli, Williams and Colabella, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered March 20, 1997, dismissing petitioner tenant’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent agency’s award to intervenor landlord of a major capital improvement rent increase, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition was properly dismissed on the ground that the evidence petitioner relies on was offered for the first time in his Petition for Administrative Review although it had been available to him for two years and could have been submitted to the Rent Administrator (9 NYCRR 2529.6; Matter of Birdoff & Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 204 AD2d 630; Matter of 985 Fifth Ave. v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 171 AD2d 572, 574-575, lv denied 78 NY2d 861). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Nardelli, Williams and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 373, 663 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levine-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack