Sovereign Apartments, Inc. v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board

435 N.E.2d 674, 56 N.Y.2d 586, 450 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3262
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 30, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 435 N.E.2d 674 (Sovereign Apartments, Inc. v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sovereign Apartments, Inc. v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board, 435 N.E.2d 674, 56 N.Y.2d 586, 450 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3262 (N.Y. 1982).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

It cannot be said that appellant Meyers Parking System, Inc., was improperly joined in the proceeding commenced by petitioner Sovereign Apartments, Inc., to challenge a New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board determination that the parking garage service provided at Sovereign was a required service under the Rent Stabilization Law and Code for which rents had been improperly increased. The board order directed the landlord to roll back the garage rents and to arrange for refunds and authorized the tenants to deduct any unrefunded overcharges from the next garage rent. As lessee, Meyers would be subject to the rent stabilization laws to the same extent as the landlord (cf. Bank of N. Y., Albany v Hirschfeld, 37 NY2d 501) and it could have challenged the determination on any ground in the article 78 proceeding commenced for that purpose. Meyers does not dispute that it was fully aware of the pending board proceeding and has steadfastly refused to produce the lease under which it claims a right to have been formally served in the proceeding. Under the circumstances, neither joinder nor issuance of the permanent injunction was improper.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Meyer concur; Judge Fuchsberg taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

446 Realty Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
165 A.D.2d 778 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Mid-State Management Corp. v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board
112 A.D.2d 72 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
435 N.E.2d 674, 56 N.Y.2d 586, 450 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sovereign-apartments-inc-v-new-york-city-conciliation-appeals-board-ny-1982.