Pulliam v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pulliam v. Robinson

248 A.D.2d 239, 671 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2537

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 239 (Pulliam v. Robinson) 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

Pulliam v. Robinson, 248 A.D.2d 239, 671 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated June 25, 1996, which, after a hearing, found that the subject apartment is rent controlled, unanimously confirmed, [240]*240the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Diane Lebedeíf, J.], entered December 9, 1996), unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner owner’s challenges to the veracity of respondents tenants’ testimony and the authenticity of their documents involve credibility determinations that are largely unreviewable by the courts (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated June 25, 1996, which, after a hearing, found that the subject apartment is rent controlled, unanimously confirmed, [240]*240the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Diane Lebedeíf, J.], entered December 9, 1996), unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner owner’s challenges to the veracity of respondents tenants’ testimony and the authenticity of their documents involve credibility determinations that are largely unreviewable by the courts (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 239, 671 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pulliam-v-robinson-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack