Lieberman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lieberman v. City of New York

120 A.D.2d 730, 502 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56856

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

DecidedMay 27, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 120 A.D.2d 730 (Lieberman v. City of New York) 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

Lieberman v. City of New York, 120 A.D.2d 730, 502 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent-respondent, dated March 30, 1984, which held that the petitioner’s apartment was not subject to the Rent Control Law and Regulations, the intervenor-respondent appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.), dated January 3, 1985, which annulled the determination and remitted the matter to the respondent-respondent for further consideration.

[731]*731Appeal dismissed, with costs.

The appellant, having defaulted in appearing in this proceeding at Special Term, has no standing to appeal from the judgment of Special Term. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent-respondent, dated March 30, 1984, which held that the petitioner’s apartment was not subject to the Rent Control Law and Regulations, the intervenor-respondent appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.), dated January 3, 1985, which annulled the determination and remitted the matter to the respondent-respondent for further consideration.

[731]*731Appeal dismissed, with costs.

The appellant, having defaulted in appearing in this proceeding at Special Term, has no standing to appeal from the judgment of Special Term. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 730, 502 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lieberman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack