Waidmann Realty Corp. v. Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waidmann Realty Corp. v. Higgins

194 A.D.2d 303, 598 N.Y.S.2d 945

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

DecidedJune 1, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 303 (Waidmann Realty Corp. v. Higgins) 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

Waidmann Realty Corp. v. Higgins, 194 A.D.2d 303, 598 N.Y.S.2d 945 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered March 19, 1992, which denied the CPLR article 78 petition, confirmed an Order and Opinion Denying Petition for Administrative Review of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated November 14, 1990, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The order of respondents, establishing a stabilized rent for the apartment in issue and directing payment of treble damages, in addition to payment of rent overcharges, was rationally based upon the evidence (see, Matter of Heintz v Brown, 80 NY2d 998, 1001), and a court may not substitute its own views for that of the administrative agency.

We have considered all of the petitioner’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered March 19, 1992, which denied the CPLR article 78 petition, confirmed an Order and Opinion Denying Petition for Administrative Review of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated November 14, 1990, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The order of respondents, establishing a stabilized rent for the apartment in issue and directing payment of treble damages, in addition to payment of rent overcharges, was rationally based upon the evidence (see, Matter of Heintz v Brown, 80 NY2d 998, 1001), and a court may not substitute its own views for that of the administrative agency.

We have considered all of the petitioner’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 303, 598 N.Y.S.2d 945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waidmann-realty-corp-v-higgins-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack