Home/New York Court of Appeals/Parkchester Apts. Co. v. Lefkowitz

Parkchester Apts. Co. v. Lefkowitz

325 N.E.2d 870, 36 N.Y.2d 688, 366 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 1667
New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 17, 1975·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Memorandum. We conclude that the Attorney-General was not justified in refusing to review petitioner’s resulbmission, “ even for the .purpose of determining whether specific deficiencies have been rectified, or new ones found to exist ’ ’, solely on the ground that litigation was pending with respect to a related property. (Cf. Matter of Whalen v. Lefkowitz, 36 N Y 2d 75.)

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. We do not reach the issue tendered on oral argument as to the application in this case of chapter 1021 of the Laws of 1974.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

Parkchester Apts. Co. v. Lefkowitz, 325 N.E.2d 870, 36 N.Y.2d 688, 366 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 1667 (N.Y. 1975).

325 N.E.2d 870 (Parkchester Apts. Co. v. Lefkowitz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carroll McEntee & McGinley, Inc. v. Department of Finance
179 A.D.2d 514 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Harbor Tower, Inc. v. Abrams
85 A.D.2d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Gonkjur Associates v. Abrams
82 A.D.2d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Parkchester Apts. Co. v. Lefkowitz
41 N.Y. 987 (New York Court of Appeals, 1977)
Parkview Holding Corp. v. Joy
87 Misc. 2d 570 (New York Supreme Court, 1976)
Parkchester Apts. Co. v. Lefkowitz
51 A.D.2d 277 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)