Argued October 12, 1976 Decided December 22, 1976 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, GEORGE STARKE, J. W. Bernard Richland, Corporation Counsel (James G. Greilsheimer and L. Kevin Sheridan of counsel), New York City, for appellant. Frederick R. Livingston, Jay W. Waks and William C. Zifchak, New York City, for respondent. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (George D. Zuckerman and Samuel A. Hirshowitz of counsel), New York City, for intervenor
Argued April 21, 1988 Decided May 31, 1988 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Arthur E. Blyn, J. Richard M. Betheil and Ronald H. Schechtman for appellants. Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (Barry P. Schwartz and Fay Leoussis of counsel), for respondents. Robert Perez-Wilson and Joel Giller for Stanley Hill, amicus curiae. BELLACOSA, J. We agree with the views expressed in the dissent at the Appellate Division that the pertinent statute
Argued September 13, 1979 Decided October 11, 1979 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, CHARLES J. TIERNEY, J. Carol Ule for appellants. Alan W. Ginsberg and Harry Michelson for respondents. MEMORANDUM. The petitioner tenants' protest, which the commissioner denied, is based on the argument that with respect to a rent increase resulting from rehabilitation of housing accommodations with government assisted financing, once the commissioner grants
Argued March 20, 1984 Decided May 1, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Harold Tompkins, J. Ronald S. Koppelman for appellants. Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel ( Joan E. Handler and Francis F. Caputo of counsel), for respondent. Order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum of the Appellate Division ( 95 A.D.2d 724). Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE.
The legislature finds and declares that the distribution and sale of motor vehicles within this state vitally affects the general economy of the state and the public interest and the public welfare, and that in order to promote the public interest and the public welfare and in the exercise of its police power, it is necessary to regulate motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors and factory or distributor representatives and to regulate dealers of motor vehicles doing business in this state in order