Vahab v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vahab v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

254 A.D.2d 31, 677 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9921

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 31 (Vahab v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) 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

Vahab v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 254 A.D.2d 31, 677 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered June 25, 1997, which granted petitioner tenant’s application to annul respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR) order of deregulation issued pursuant to the default procedure of Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-504.3 (c) and remanded to DHCR “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision”, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the judgment vacated.

The judgment should be vacated as not susceptible to implementation due to the departure from the apartment and relocation abroad of the tenant and his family (see, Matter of Alvarez v New York State Div. ofHous. & Community Renewal, 252 AD2d 359). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered June 25, 1997, which granted petitioner tenant’s application to annul respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR) order of deregulation issued pursuant to the default procedure of Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-504.3 (c) and remanded to DHCR “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision”, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the judgment vacated.

The judgment should be vacated as not susceptible to implementation due to the departure from the apartment and relocation abroad of the tenant and his family (see, Matter of Alvarez v New York State Div. ofHous. & Community Renewal, 252 AD2d 359). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 31, 677 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vahab-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack