Racoosin v. Gabel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Racoosin v. Gabel

25 A.D.2d 436, 267 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5226

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 436 (Racoosin v. Gabel) 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

Racoosin v. Gabel, 25 A.D.2d 436, 267 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding by a landlord pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul a determination of the City Rent Administrator reducing the rents of the subject premises because of a decrease in essential services (elimination of locked lobby doors, bell and buzzer system), the landlord appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 20, 1985 on reargument, which adhered to the court’s original determination dismissing the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, there was substantial evidence to support the determination of the City Rent Administrator. In the circumstances, it may not be disturbed by the courts (Matter of Wiener v. Gabel, 18 A D 2d 1025; Matter of Stratford Leasing Corp. v. Gabel, 17 A D 2d 332, affd. 13 N Y 2d 607).

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding by a landlord pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul a determination of the City Rent Administrator reducing the rents of the subject premises because of a decrease in essential services (elimination of locked lobby doors, bell and buzzer system), the landlord appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 20, 1985 on reargument, which adhered to the court’s original determination dismissing the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, there was substantial evidence to support the determination of the City Rent Administrator. In the circumstances, it may not be disturbed by the courts (Matter of Wiener v. Gabel, 18 A D 2d 1025; Matter of Stratford Leasing Corp. v. Gabel, 17 A D 2d 332, affd. 13 N Y 2d 607).

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 436, 267 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/racoosin-v-gabel-nyappdiv-1966.