14 Cited authorities

  1. In re Gilman v. N.Y.S. Div. of Housing

    99 N.Y.2d 144 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 179 times
    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 NY2d at 147, 149-152).
  2. Finger Lakes v. Racing Bd.

    382 N.E.2d 1131 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 125 times

    Argued September 18, 1978 Decided October 26, 1978 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, LYMAN H. SMITH, J. John Van Voorhis for appellants in the first and second above-entitled actions. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (John M. Dailey, Ruth Kessler Toch and William J. Kogan of counsel), for New York State Racing and Wagering Board, respondent in the first above-entitled action and for intervenor-respondent in the second above-entitled action

  3. Matter of Nestor v. New York State D.H.C.R

    257 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 42 times

    January 7, 1999. Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Colleen McMahon, J.). Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking to annul DHCR's denial of petitioners' application for high income rent deregulation. The Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1993 (L 1993, ch 253) and the Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 26-501 et seq.) prohibit disclosure of any income other than the Federal adjusted gross income of an occupant of an apartment, as reported on the New

  4. 85 Eastern Parkway Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

    297 A.D.2d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 29 times

    2001-00762, 2001-07400 Argued April 22, 2002. September 18, 2002. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated March 7, 2000, which, inter alia, confirmed a determination of the Rent Administrator, dated February 19, 1998, that the petitioner had charged $51,419.33 in excess rent for the subject rent-stabilized apartment and that the fair market monthly rental value thereof was

  5. Matter of Campagna v. Shaffer

    536 N.E.2d 368 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 43 times

    Argued January 5, 1989 Decided February 16, 1989 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Jack Turret, J. Michael T. Wallender, John T. DeGraff, Jr., and Brian J. McCann for appellant. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Kathie Ann Whipple, O. Peter Sherwood, Richard G. Liskov and Ellen J. Fried of counsel), for respondent. BELLACOSA, J. Petitioner, a licensed real estate broker, challenges an order of the respondent Secretary of State, dated September

  6. Matter of Frick v. Bahou

    56 N.Y.2d 777 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 51 times

    Decided May 18, 1982 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, LAWRENCE E. KAHN, J. Ralph W. Fusco for appellant. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( John Q. Driscoll of counsel), for respondents. On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.2 [b]), order reversed, without costs, and judgment of Special Term reinstated. Respondents' grading of the examination was in contravention of the respondent

  7. Vink v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

    285 A.D.2d 203 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 18 times

    August 23, 2001. Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered August 18, 2000, which granted the motions of defendants to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a cause of action. Robert Chira, of counsel (Robert Chira Associates, attorneys) for plaintiffs-appellants. Katherine E. Timon, of counsel (Marion R. Buchbinder, on the brief, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, attorney) for defendant-respondent New York

  8. Noto v. Bedford Apartments Co.

    21 A.D.3d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 13 times

    September 8, 2005. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about October 5, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and/or (7), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Before: Marlow, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ. Defendant Bedford Apartments

  9. Terrace Court v. N.Y. State

    79 A.D.3d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 6 times

    No. 1944. December 28, 2010. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered August 7, 2008, denying the petition to annul respondent's determination, dated November 15, 2007, which denied a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase for five apartments in petitioner's building, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, affirmed, without costs. Wenig Saltiel LLP, Brooklyn (Meryl L. Wenig of counsel), for appellant. Gary R. Connor, New York (Christina

  10. Tze Chun Liao v. New York State Banking Department

    548 N.E.2d 911 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 23 times
    Noting rise in use of check cashing facilities because traditional institutions have reduced personal consumer services
  11. Section 600.10 - Format and content of records, appendices and briefs

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 600.10   Cited 9 times

    (a) Form and size. (1) Generally; paper and page size. Records, appendices and briefs shall be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black on white copy and shall be on a good grade of white, opaque, unglazed recycled paper that satisfies the requirements of subdivision (e) of this section. Paper shall measure vertically 11 inches on the bound edge and horizontally 81/2 inches. The clerk may refuse to accept for filing a paper which is not legible or otherwise does not comply

  12. Section 2211.4 - Procedure where tenant fails to return ICF or landlord disputes certification

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9 § 2211.4   Cited 1 times

    (a) In the event that the tenant or tenants either fail to return the completed ICF to the landlord on or before the date required by section 2211.2(d) of this Part or the landlord disputes the certification returned by the tenant or tenants, the landlord may, on or before June 30th of such year, file an owner's petition for deregulation (OPD) which petitions the city rent agency to verify, pursuant to section 171-b of the Tax Law, whether the total annual income exceeds $250,000, $175,000, or $200