Wilson v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal

121 A.D.2d 390, 503 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58330
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 2, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 A.D.2d 390 (Wilson v. 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
Wilson v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 121 A.D.2d 390, 503 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated January 15, 1985, which, after a hearing, affirmed a determination of a district rent administrator, which had granted a landlord’s application for a certificate of eviction, finding that the landlord had the right to refuse to renew the petitioner’s lease.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The record establishes an immediate and compelling necessity on the part of the landlord for possession of the petition[391]*391er’s apartment, because a local ordinance (Mount Vernon Building Code, art 2, § 38 [b]) required that the building have a resident superintendent. As the respondent’s determination is based on substantial evidence, it must be upheld (see, Matter of Foster v Joy, 91 AD2d. 610; Matter of Wiener v Gabel, 18 AD2d 1025).

The petitioner’s assertion that the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law (McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 8585 [2] [a] [L 1946, ch 274, as amended by L 1984, ch 234, § 2]), which shields elderly, long-term and disabled tenants from eviction, should apply to this case is not persuasive. That statute, on its face, applies only to those situations where an owner seeks occupancy of an apartment for the owner’s personal use or for the use of the owner’s immediate family (cf. Matter of Cutrupi v Joy, 114 AD2d 847). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cook v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal
151 A.D.2d 748 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 A.D.2d 390, 503 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1986.