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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

259 A.D.2d 398, 687 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3131

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 398 (Londin 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

Londin v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 259 A.D.2d 398, 687 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), entered March 6, 1998, which denied petitioner tenant’s application to annul respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR) determination deregulating her apartment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The apartment was properly deregulated upon petitioner’s failure to provide DHCR with the income verification information it had requested more than 60 days before (Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-504.3 [c] [1], [3]; see, Matter of Nick v State of N. Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 244 AD2d 299; Matter of Bazbaz v State of N. Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 246 AD2d 388; Pledge v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 257 AD2d 391, 393-394). Petitioner’s excuse for such failure was not raised in the administrative proceeding and therefore may not be considered in this judicial proceeding (see, Matter of E.G.A. Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 232 AD2d [399]*399302). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), entered March 6, 1998, which denied petitioner tenant’s application to annul respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR) determination deregulating her apartment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The apartment was properly deregulated upon petitioner’s failure to provide DHCR with the income verification information it had requested more than 60 days before (Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-504.3 [c] [1], [3]; see, Matter of Nick v State of N. Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 244 AD2d 299; Matter of Bazbaz v State of N. Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 246 AD2d 388; Pledge v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 257 AD2d 391, 393-394). Petitioner’s excuse for such failure was not raised in the administrative proceeding and therefore may not be considered in this judicial proceeding (see, Matter of E.G.A. Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 232 AD2d [399]*399302). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 398, 687 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/londin-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack