Nee v. New York State Community Housing & Renewal Agency

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nee v. New York State Community Housing & Renewal Agency

56 A.D.2d 904, 392 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11301

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 904 (Nee v. New York State Community Housing & Renewal Agency) 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

Nee v. New York State Community Housing & Renewal Agency, 56 A.D.2d 904, 392 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review two determinations of the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (sued herein as the New York State Community Housing and Renewal Agency) which, after a hearing, granted rent increases to the respondent housing companies, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 23, 1976, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Special Term correctly dismissed the petition. Whether viewed under the substantial evidence or the arbitrary and capricious test, the determinations made were proper (see Matter of Fuller v Urstadt, 28 NY2d 315; Matter of Sullo [Goodwin], NYU, June 25, 1976, p 5, col 6). Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, 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 two determinations of the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (sued herein as the New York State Community Housing and Renewal Agency) which, after a hearing, granted rent increases to the respondent housing companies, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 23, 1976, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Special Term correctly dismissed the petition. Whether viewed under the substantial evidence or the arbitrary and capricious test, the determinations made were proper (see Matter of Fuller v Urstadt, 28 NY2d 315; Matter of Sullo [Goodwin], NYU, June 25, 1976, p 5, col 6). Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 904, 392 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nee-v-new-york-state-community-housing-renewal-agency-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack