Pamasal, Inc. v. Herman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pamasal, Inc. v. Herman

20 A.D.2d 895, 249 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4078

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

DecidedApril 6, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 895 (Pamasal, Inc. v. Herman) 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

Pamasal, Inc. v. Herman, 20 A.D.2d 895, 249 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding under article 78 of the former Civil Practice Act, to annul a determination of the State Rent Administrator which dismissed petitioner’s protest against the Administrator’s order denying decontrol of the subject premises, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 3, 1962, which upon reargument adhered to the court’s original determination denying the application and dismissing the petition. Order affirmed, with costs. We do not pass upon whether actual demolition of existing structures is required before an improvement may be deemed a “ housing accommodation which was completed on or after February 1, 1947” so as to be exempt from rent control (Emergency Housing Rent Control Law, § 2, subd. 2, par. [g]; L. 1946, eh. 274, as amd.). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding under article 78 of the former Civil Practice Act, to annul a determination of the State Rent Administrator which dismissed petitioner’s protest against the Administrator’s order denying decontrol of the subject premises, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 3, 1962, which upon reargument adhered to the court’s original determination denying the application and dismissing the petition. Order affirmed, with costs. We do not pass upon whether actual demolition of existing structures is required before an improvement may be deemed a “ housing accommodation which was completed on or after February 1, 1947” so as to be exempt from rent control (Emergency Housing Rent Control Law, § 2, subd. 2, par. [g]; L. 1946, eh. 274, as amd.). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 895, 249 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pamasal-inc-v-herman-nyappdiv-1964.