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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

302 A.D.2d 275, 753 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1521

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 275 (Mueller v. State of New York 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

Mueller v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 302 A.D.2d 275, 753 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered May 20, 2002, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated September 28, 2000, insofar as such determination found that certain rent overcharges by respondent landlord Harmir Realty Co. were not willful, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The administrative record provides rational support for respondent DHCR’s determination that respondent landlord met its burden to demonstrate that the subject rent overcharges were not willful. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered May 20, 2002, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated September 28, 2000, insofar as such determination found that certain rent overcharges by respondent landlord Harmir Realty Co. were not willful, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The administrative record provides rational support for respondent DHCR’s determination that respondent landlord met its burden to demonstrate that the subject rent overcharges were not willful. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 275, 753 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mueller-v-state-of-new-york-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-2003.