Torillo v. Joy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torillo v. Joy

100 A.D.2d 620

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.2d 620 (Torillo v. Joy) 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

Torillo v. Joy, 100 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent Joy, which, inter alia, affirmed an order of a district rent director granting a certificate of eviction against petitioner, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.), dated May 9, 1983, which dismissed the proceeding. D Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. K A rational basis exists for the respondent’s finding that the co-owner landlords met the requirements of the Rent and Eviction Regulations of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (see 9 NYCRR 2104.5 [a] [1]; Matter of Fazio v Joy, 58 NY2d 674, affg 89 AD2d 604). The landlords established that they sought possession in good faith for their own personal use (see Matter of Porreca v Reichman, 35 AD2d 540). Titone, J. P., Rubin, Boyers and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent Joy, which, inter alia, affirmed an order of a district rent director granting a certificate of eviction against petitioner, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.), dated May 9, 1983, which dismissed the proceeding. D Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. K A rational basis exists for the respondent’s finding that the co-owner landlords met the requirements of the Rent and Eviction Regulations of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (see 9 NYCRR 2104.5 [a] [1]; Matter of Fazio v Joy, 58 NY2d 674, affg 89 AD2d 604). The landlords established that they sought possession in good faith for their own personal use (see Matter of Porreca v Reichman, 35 AD2d 540). Titone, J. P., Rubin, Boyers and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torillo-v-joy-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack