§Why CasetextPricing

Branic International Realty Corp., Appellant,v.Phillip Pitt,, Respondent, et al., Respondents.

Brief

15 Cited authorities

  1. Matter Hearst Corp. v. Clyne

    50 N.Y.2d 707 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 1,594 times
    Holding that courts are normally precluded from considering questions that, once alive, have become moot by change of circumstances

  2. Seawall Associates v. City of New York

    74 N.Y.2d 92 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 90 times
    Finding that development rights are "valuable components of the bundle of rights' making up" a fee interest in real property

  3. Branic Int'l Realty Corp. v. Pitt

    106 A.D.3d 178 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 12 times

    2013-04-16 BRANIC INTERNATIONAL REALTY CORP., Petitioner–Respondent, v. Phillip PITT, etc., Respondent–Appellant, “John Doe,” et al., Respondents. West Side SRO Law Project, New York (Martha Weithman of counsel), and ManhattanLegal Services, New York (Jim Provost of counsel), for appellant. Rosenberg Calica & Birney LLP, Garden City (Ronald J. Rosenberg, Lesley A. Reardon and Diana Attner of counsel), for Branic International Realty Corp., respondent. RICHARD T. ANDRIAS West Side SRO Law Project

  4. Jazilek v. Abart Holdings

    10 N.Y.3d 943 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 14 times
    In Jazilek, the parties had resolved an earlier holdover proceeding with a stipulation providing that the respondent (described variously as an illegal subtenant or roommate of a primary tenant who had vacated the rent-stabilized apartment), would become the primary tenant at an agreed upon rent.

  5. Brianic Intl. v. Pitt

    24 Misc. 3d 940 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2009)   Cited 9 times
    In Branic International Realty Corp. v. Pitt, 24 Misc 3d 940 (2009), the court found Pitt to be a permanent tenant within the context of 9 NYCRR § 2520.6 (j) and granted him summary judgment.

  6. Branic Int'l Realty Corp. v. Pitt

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 7927 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    11-18-2014 Branic International Realty Corp., Appellant, v. Phillip Pitt, & c., Respondent, “John Doe,” et al., Respondents. Rosenberg Calica & Birney LLP, Garden City (Ronald J. Rosenberg and Lesley A. Reardon of counsel), for appellant. Goddaard Riverside SRO Law Project, New York City (Martha A. Weithman of counsel), and Manhattan Legal Services, New York City (Jim Provost of counsel), for respondent. MFY Legal Services, Inc., New York City (Tanya Kessler, Brian Sullivan, Kevin Cremin and Jeanette

  7. Branic Realty Core v. Pitt

    30 Misc. 3d 29 (N.Y. App. Term 2010)   Cited 6 times

    No. 570284/10. December 22, 2010. APPEAL from orders of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), dated June 9, 2009 and December 3, 2009 (op 25 Misc 3d 1236 [A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52430[U]). The order dated June 9, 2009 granted respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition in a holdover summary proceeding and denied petitioner's cross motion for summary judgment. The order dated December 3, 2009, insofar as appealed from, denied petitioner's

  8. Crossbay Equities LLC v. Balzano

    17 N.Y.S.3d 382 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    No. 81115/2014. 2015-03-26 CROSSBAY EQUITIES LLC,, Petitioner/Landlord, v. Todd BALZANO, Respondent/Tenant. Papers JACK STOLLER

  9. Cunha v. Urias

    112 A.D.3d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

    2013-12-26 In the Matter of Antonio C. CUNHA, respondent, v. Rosa E. URIAS, appellant. REINALDO E. RIVERA Kent V. Moston, Hempstead, N.Y. (Jeremy L. Goldberg and Argun M. Ulgen of counsel), for appellant. REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ. In a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an amended order of commitment of the Family Court, Nassau County

  10. Jazilek v. Abart Holdings

    41 A.D.3d 124 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 3 times

    No. 343. June 5, 2007. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered on or about October 4, 2006, insofar as it denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Anthony F. LeCrichia, New York, for appellant. Sokolski Zekaria, P.C., New York (Robert E. Sokolski of counsel), for respondent. Before: Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan

  11. Section 2520.6 - Definitions

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9 § 2520.6   Cited 191 times

    (a) Housing accommodation. That part of any building or structure, occupied or intended to be occupied by one or more individuals as a residence, home, dwelling unit or apartment, and all services, privileges, furnishings, furniture and facilities supplied in connection with the occupation thereof. The term housing accommodation will also apply to any plot or parcel of land which had been regulated pursuant to the City of Rent Law prior to July 1, 1971, and which became subject to the RSL after June

  12. Section 2520.1 - Statutory authority

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9 § 2520.1   Cited 38 times

    This Subchapter is promulgated and adopted pursuant to the powers granted to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 9 § 2520.1 Amended New York State Register November 8, 2023/Volume XLV, Issue 45, eff. 11/8/2023

  13. Section 358-3.1 - Right to a fair hearing

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18 § 358-3.1   Cited 27 times

    (a) An applicant or recipient has the right to challenge certain determinations or actions of a social services agency or such agency's failure to act with reasonable promptness or within the time periods required by other provisions of this Title, by requesting that the OAH provide a fair hearing. The right to request a fair hearing cannot be limited or interfered with in any way. (b) If you are an applicant or a recipient of assistance, benefits or services you have a right to a fair hearing if:

  14. Section 491.4 - Operating certificates

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18 § 491.4   Cited 3 times

    (a) Upon approval of an operational plan for a shelter for adults, a small-capacity shelter or a shelter for adult families, the office will issue an operating certificate to the operator of the facility. A social services district will not be reimbursed for costs incurred for shelter and services provided by any shelter for adults, small-capacity shelter, or shelter for adult families where the operator of such facility does not have a valid operating certificate, and no shelter for adults, small-capacity