Property Salvage Corp. v. Joy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Property Salvage Corp. v. Joy

51 A.D.2d 912, 381 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11578

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 912 (Property Salvage Corp. v. Joy) 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

Property Salvage Corp. v. Joy, 51 A.D.2d 912, 381 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 29, 1975, granting the petition and directing restoration of the maximum base rent for the petitioner’s building for 1972, nunc pro tunc, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. While the respondent-appellant argues here that the petitioner in this article 78 proceeding had not exhausted its administrative remedy, it did not so answer the petition at the Special Term. It did not answer at all, but elected to respond only by informally asking for a remand for further testimony. When the Special Term properly concluded that there were no grounds sufficient to warrant a remand, it properly granted the petition. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Nunez and Lynch, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 29, 1975, granting the petition and directing restoration of the maximum base rent for the petitioner’s building for 1972, nunc pro tunc, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. While the respondent-appellant argues here that the petitioner in this article 78 proceeding had not exhausted its administrative remedy, it did not so answer the petition at the Special Term. It did not answer at all, but elected to respond only by informally asking for a remand for further testimony. When the Special Term properly concluded that there were no grounds sufficient to warrant a remand, it properly granted the petition. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Nunez and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 912, 381 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/property-salvage-corp-v-joy-nyappdiv-1976.