Nardo v. New York City Loft Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nardo v. New York City Loft Board

202 A.D.2d 364, 612 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 364 (Nardo v. New York City Loft Board) 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

Nardo v. New York City Loft Board, 202 A.D.2d 364, 612 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered July 8, 1992, dismissing a CPLR article 78 petition seeking to vacate and annul a determination of the New York City Loft Board as contrary to its own rules and regulations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s challenge to the Loft Board’s determination that the cost of restoring elevator service would be borne by the tenants was properly dismissed since the Loft Board was precluded from reaching and in fact did not reach this issue in the context of a proceeding pursuant to 29 RCNY 2-01 (d) (2) (vii) (B) (b). Rather, the Loft Board offered the tenants a right to waive the requirement that the owner provide this service upon the ground that it might ultimately be determined that some of the costs of restoring elevator service would be shifted to the tenants (see, Multiple Dwelling Law § 286 [5]). We decline to consider petitioner’s additional arguments advanced for the first time on appeal. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered July 8, 1992, dismissing a CPLR article 78 petition seeking to vacate and annul a determination of the New York City Loft Board as contrary to its own rules and regulations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s challenge to the Loft Board’s determination that the cost of restoring elevator service would be borne by the tenants was properly dismissed since the Loft Board was precluded from reaching and in fact did not reach this issue in the context of a proceeding pursuant to 29 RCNY 2-01 (d) (2) (vii) (B) (b). Rather, the Loft Board offered the tenants a right to waive the requirement that the owner provide this service upon the ground that it might ultimately be determined that some of the costs of restoring elevator service would be shifted to the tenants (see, Multiple Dwelling Law § 286 [5]). We decline to consider petitioner’s additional arguments advanced for the first time on appeal. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 364, 612 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nardo-v-new-york-city-loft-board-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack