Pezzano v. Holland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pezzano v. Holland

249 A.D.2d 17, 671 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3519

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

DecidedApril 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 17 (Pezzano v. Holland) 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

Pezzano v. Holland, 249 A.D.2d 17, 671 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered October 28, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR) dismissal of her fair market rent appeal as untimely, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs. .

Respondent’s DHCR’s findings that respondent landlord’s proof of certified mailing of a DC-2 notice to petitioner on January 28, 1983 was sufficient to raise a presumption of receipt, and that petitioner’s testimony that she did not recall receiving such notice was insufficient to rebut the presumption, are not arbitrary and capricious (see, Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828; CPLR 7803 [3]). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments, including that prior DHCR decisions addressing tenants’ receipt of DC-2 notices are inconsistent with its findings in this proceeding, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered October 28, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR) dismissal of her fair market rent appeal as untimely, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs. .

Respondent’s DHCR’s findings that respondent landlord’s proof of certified mailing of a DC-2 notice to petitioner on January 28, 1983 was sufficient to raise a presumption of receipt, and that petitioner’s testimony that she did not recall receiving such notice was insufficient to rebut the presumption, are not arbitrary and capricious (see, Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828; CPLR 7803 [3]). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments, including that prior DHCR decisions addressing tenants’ receipt of DC-2 notices are inconsistent with its findings in this proceeding, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 17, 671 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pezzano-v-holland-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack