Wilson v. Franco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilson v. Franco

261 A.D.2d 197, 690 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5254

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

DecidedMay 13, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 197 (Wilson v. Franco) 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. Franco, 261 A.D.2d 197, 690 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5254 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Leland DeGrasse, J.], entered February 10, 1998) seeking to, inter alia, annul a determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated July 23, 1997, which terminated petitioner’s public housing tenancy on grounds of nondesirability and breach of the Tenant Rules and Regulations, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Since petitioner vacated the subject premises and does not seek either restoration, reapplication or money damages, there is no justiciable controversy (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-714). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Leland DeGrasse, J.], entered February 10, 1998) seeking to, inter alia, annul a determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated July 23, 1997, which terminated petitioner’s public housing tenancy on grounds of nondesirability and breach of the Tenant Rules and Regulations, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Since petitioner vacated the subject premises and does not seek either restoration, reapplication or money damages, there is no justiciable controversy (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-714). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 197, 690 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-franco-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack