Reynolds v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reynolds v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal

213 A.D.2d 296, 624 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3029

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 296 (Reynolds v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal) 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

Reynolds v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 213 A.D.2d 296, 624 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered July 13, 1994, which inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to renew an order, same court and Justice, dated November 30, 1993, which, inter alia, denied her motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court, by prior order, had ruled that the Division of Housing and Community Renewal would have primary jurisdiction over the rent overcharge claim and the related question of the existence of an illusory tenancy during the initial vacancy decontrol period. Those administrative proceedings had not yet concluded at the time of the subject motions and thus, under the circumstances herein, denial of summary judgment was proper. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered July 13, 1994, which inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to renew an order, same court and Justice, dated November 30, 1993, which, inter alia, denied her motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court, by prior order, had ruled that the Division of Housing and Community Renewal would have primary jurisdiction over the rent overcharge claim and the related question of the existence of an illusory tenancy during the initial vacancy decontrol period. Those administrative proceedings had not yet concluded at the time of the subject motions and thus, under the circumstances herein, denial of summary judgment was proper. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 296, 624 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1995.