Schick v. Park Royal Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schick v. Park Royal Associates

109 A.D.2d 681, 491 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47164

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.2d 681 (Schick v. Park Royal Associates) 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

Schick v. Park Royal Associates, 109 A.D.2d 681, 491 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, denied, and insofar as it seeks reargument, motion granted solely to the extent of recalling the order of this court entered on December 27, 1984 (106 AD2d 927) and resettling said order to modify the order and judgment (one paper) so appealed from, on the law, to the extent of declaring the individual dwelling units of plaintiffs herein all rented for amounts in excess of $350 per month or $88 per week on the statutory date of May 31, 1968, and are, therefore, pursuant to Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of New York) § YY51-3.1, exempt from coverage by such law, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Resettled order signed and filed. Concur — Asch, J. P., Bloom, Fein and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, denied, and insofar as it seeks reargument, motion granted solely to the extent of recalling the order of this court entered on December 27, 1984 (106 AD2d 927) and resettling said order to modify the order and judgment (one paper) so appealed from, on the law, to the extent of declaring the individual dwelling units of plaintiffs herein all rented for amounts in excess of $350 per month or $88 per week on the statutory date of May 31, 1968, and are, therefore, pursuant to Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of New York) § YY51-3.1, exempt from coverage by such law, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Resettled order signed and filed. Concur — Asch, J. P., Bloom, Fein and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 681, 491 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schick-v-park-royal-associates-nyappdiv-1985.