Robinson v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. Roberts

14 A.D.3d 394, 786 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 288

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.3d 394 (Robinson v. Roberts) 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

Robinson v. Roberts, 14 A.D.3d 394, 786 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[395]*395Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered November 14, 2002, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ denial of petitioner’s application for successor tenancy status, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The record evidence establishes that for approximately two years, while petitioner lived in the subject apartment, she obtained electricity illegally through an unauthorized tap line running from the apartment to a basement distribution panel, and in so doing created a danger to other tenants. This constituted an “Unacceptable activity” within the meaning of 28 RCNY 24-01 and accordingly sufficed as a ground for the denial of petitioner’s application for successor tenancy status (see 28 RCNY 24-05 [a]).

Petitioner’s remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

[395]*395Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered November 14, 2002, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ denial of petitioner’s application for successor tenancy status, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The record evidence establishes that for approximately two years, while petitioner lived in the subject apartment, she obtained electricity illegally through an unauthorized tap line running from the apartment to a basement distribution panel, and in so doing created a danger to other tenants. This constituted an “Unacceptable activity” within the meaning of 28 RCNY 24-01 and accordingly sufficed as a ground for the denial of petitioner’s application for successor tenancy status (see 28 RCNY 24-05 [a]).

Petitioner’s remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 394, 786 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-roberts-nyappdiv-2005.