Stier v. Berman

New York Supreme Court

Stier v. Berman

59 Misc. 2d 324, 298 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1969 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1722

DecidedMarch 6, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 59 Misc. 2d 324 (Stier v. Berman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stier v. Berman, 59 Misc. 2d 324, 298 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1969 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1722 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Vincent A. Lupiano, J.

In this article 78 proceeding to review respondent Bent Commissioner’s determination denying petitioner landlord’s protest and affirming an order establishing a maximum monthly rental of $1 for the subject premises as a result of fire damage, an examination of the record readily finds ample support for the determination reached and same can in no manner be characterized as arbitrary or capricious.

There was heretofore presented for respondent’s determination, at a conference and hearing, the factual issue of whether or not the tenant had evinced a desire to return to her apartment prior to the restoration thereof to a habitable condition. This issue was resolved in favor of the tenant and against petitioner landlord. Sufficient credible evidence to sustain such a finding appears in the record and, in view thereof, no warrant exists for any disturbance thereof.

The hearing before respondent was not a statutory hearing and, in view thereof, petitioner errs in contending that the proceeding should be transferred to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 7803 (subd. 4); 7804 (subd. [g]). The motion is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.

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

Vincent A. Lupiano, J.

In this article 78 proceeding to review respondent Bent Commissioner’s determination denying petitioner landlord’s protest and affirming an order establishing a maximum monthly rental of $1 for the subject premises as a result of fire damage, an examination of the record readily finds ample support for the determination reached and same can in no manner be characterized as arbitrary or capricious.

There was heretofore presented for respondent’s determination, at a conference and hearing, the factual issue of whether or not the tenant had evinced a desire to return to her apartment prior to the restoration thereof to a habitable condition. This issue was resolved in favor of the tenant and against petitioner landlord. Sufficient credible evidence to sustain such a finding appears in the record and, in view thereof, no warrant exists for any disturbance thereof.

The hearing before respondent was not a statutory hearing and, in view thereof, petitioner errs in contending that the proceeding should be transferred to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 7803 (subd. 4); 7804 (subd. [g]). The motion is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 Misc. 2d 324, 298 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1969 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stier-v-berman-nysupct-1969.