Richburg v. Franco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richburg v. Franco

260 A.D.2d 278, 686 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4185

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

DecidedApril 22, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 278 (Richburg v. Franco) 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

Richburg v. Franco, 260 A.D.2d 278, 686 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 16, 1997, which denied petitioner tenant’s application to annul respondent Housing Authority’s determination placing petitioner’s tenancy on six months’ probation for chronic rent delinquency, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[279]*279Respondent’s determination was not, as alleged, based on a policy of sanctioning tenants who withhold rent for a breach of the warranty of habitability, but rather on a particularized finding that the warranty was not breached. Such finding was not arbitrary and capricious, and the penalty of six months’ probation does not shock our sense of fairness. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 16, 1997, which denied petitioner tenant’s application to annul respondent Housing Authority’s determination placing petitioner’s tenancy on six months’ probation for chronic rent delinquency, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[279]*279Respondent’s determination was not, as alleged, based on a policy of sanctioning tenants who withhold rent for a breach of the warranty of habitability, but rather on a particularized finding that the warranty was not breached. Such finding was not arbitrary and capricious, and the penalty of six months’ probation does not shock our sense of fairness. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 278, 686 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richburg-v-franco-nyappdiv-1999.