Weinreb Management v. State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinreb Management v. State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

231 A.D.2d 473, 647 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9497

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 473 (Weinreb Management v. 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

Weinreb Management v. State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 231 A.D.2d 473, 647 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered May 17, 1995, which confirmed a determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated October 4, 1994, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The DC-2 Notice served on the alleged first rent stabilized tenant was altered by the landlord in crucial respects. This provided the agency with a rational basis for concluding that "the landlord fail[ed] to send the proper notice to the first tenant”, such that the right to make a fair market rent appeal continued to pass from tenant to tenant, since no tenant was ever "duly notified” (Matter of McKenzie v Mirabal, 155 AD2d 194, 198). Based upon the facts, we further agree that the Führer tenancy was not sufficiently connected to give Führer an incentive to appeal the proposed fair market rent.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered May 17, 1995, which confirmed a determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated October 4, 1994, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The DC-2 Notice served on the alleged first rent stabilized tenant was altered by the landlord in crucial respects. This provided the agency with a rational basis for concluding that "the landlord fail[ed] to send the proper notice to the first tenant”, such that the right to make a fair market rent appeal continued to pass from tenant to tenant, since no tenant was ever "duly notified” (Matter of McKenzie v Mirabal, 155 AD2d 194, 198). Based upon the facts, we further agree that the Führer tenancy was not sufficiently connected to give Führer an incentive to appeal the proposed fair market rent.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 473, 647 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinreb-management-v-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack