2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3585 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 513 times
In Peckham v Calogero (12 NY3d 424 [2009]) the Court of Appeals upheld the determination of the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), which granted a landlord's application to refuse renewal of its tenant's lease.
In Gilman, we held that DHCR acted irrationally when it applied an amendment relaxing evidentiary requirements for admission of owner records to permit an owner to reopen the record, nearly a decade after the tenant commenced the proceeding and during the administrative appeal, expressing concern that "the rules were changed in midstream" (99 N.Y.2d at 147, 149–152, 753 N.Y.S.2d 1, 782 N.E.2d 1137).
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6727 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 116 times
In Murphy, unlike here, the applicant provided "ample evidence" in support of his succession application reflecting residence in the apartment during the qualifying period (id. at 655, 977 N.Y.S.2d 161, 999 N.E.2d 524).
In Matter of Schumer v Holtzman (60 N.Y.2d 46, 55), a case involving removal, we held that generally a public prosecutor should not be removed unless necessary to protect a defendant from "actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence" (id.; see also, People v Herr, 86 N.Y.2d 638; People v Jackson, supra).
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2083 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 97 times
Holding that a city housing agency was not estopped from evicting a tenant who did not meet eligibility requirements by its purported acquiescence in his occupancy for several years
Noting the statutory protection afforded by Adm. Code §§ 13-104 and 13-101 to all persons in City-service, designed to exclude persons such as independent contractors, remains as important and relevant as when the statute was passed