§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of the 60 East 12th Street Tenants' Association, et al., Appellants,v.New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, et al., Respondents. (And Another Proceeding.)

Brief

19 Cited authorities

  1. Peckham v. Calogero

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3585 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 516 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.

  2. Parochial v. Board of Educ

    60 N.Y.2d 539 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 827 times
    Holding that § 3813's notice of claim requirement "is not satisfied by presentment to any other individual or body"

  3. Matter of Mid-State Mgmt. v. New York City

    112 A.D.2d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)   Cited 182 times

    July 11, 1985 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard W. Wallach, J.). This proceeding arises out of the closing of a swimming pool located on the premises or adjacent to the petitioner's building at 2750 Homecrest Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, managed by Mid-State Management Corp. (Mid-State). New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (Division), which assumed the responsibilities of the CAB effective April 1, 1984, pursuant to Laws of 1983 (ch 403), appeals from a judgment

  4. Mid-State Management Corp. v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board

    66 N.Y.2d 1032 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 139 times

    Decided December 26, 1985 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Richard W. Wallach, J. William E. Rosen for appellant. Edward Chazin and Iris J. Korman for respondent. On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division ( 112 A.D.2d 72). Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS

  5. Ansonia Residents Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

    75 N.Y.2d 206 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 119 times
    In Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal (75 N.Y.2d 206, 216), the Court of Appeals upheld the permanence of the MCI-based rent increase because "a rent increase on the basis of a major capital improvement does not represent payment of a finite debt which the tenant owes to the owner, but rather is payment for a service which the tenant continues to receive after the owner has recouped the initial cost of the improvement."

  6. Porter v. N.Y

    51 A.D.3d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 25 times

    No. 3001. May 1, 2008. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered June 7, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the cross motion of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) for an order remitting the matter to itself for further consideration, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Buchanan Ingersoll Rooney, P.C., New York (Barry I. Slotnik of counsel), for appellant. Robert Petrucci, New York, for Bruce and Alida Porter, Donna Dennis, James

  7. In re Peckham v. Calogero

    54 A.D.3d 27 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 21 times
    In Peckham, the predecessor landlord filed an application with DHCR requesting permission not to renew the tenant's rent stabilized lease because it was going to demolish the building (12 N.Y.3d at 428, 883 N.Y.S.2d 751, 911 N.E.2d 813).

  8. In re Sherwood 34 Assoc

    309 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 23 times
    In Sherwood 34 Assoc., the DHCR sought to remit because it had issued two directly conflicting orders, one year apart, concerning its jurisdiction over a particular building, and there needed to be further fact-finding and a final determination as to the building's status (Sherwood, 309 A.D.2d at 532, 765 N.Y.S.2d 592).

  9. Klein v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

    17 A.D.3d 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 14 times

    5462. April 14, 2005. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered May 10, 2004, which granted the cross motion of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) to remand the matter for further proceedings "to review the manner and merits of the application upon which the PAR [petition for administrative review] was submitted," unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed. Horing

  10. SP 141 E 33 LLC v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

    91 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 7 times

    2012-01-31 In re SP 141 E 33 LLC, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, et al., Respondents–Respondents.Community Housing Improvement Program, Amicus Curiae. Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), for appellant. Gary R. Connor, New York (Sandra A. Joseph of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, respondent. TOM Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), for appellant

  11. Section 2522.4 - Adjustment of legal regulated rent

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9 § 2522.4   Cited 123 times

    (a) Individual Apartment Improvements. (1) Increase in space, new equipment, new furniture or furnishings; and other adjustments. (2) An owner is entitled to a temporary rent increase where there has been a reasonable and verifiable modification, other than an increase for which an adjustment may be claimed pursuant to subdivision (b) of this section, of dwelling space, installation of new equipment or improvements, or new furniture or furnishings, provided in or to the tenant's housing accommodation

  12. Section 2527.8 - Modification or revocation of orders

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9 § 2527.8   Cited 23 times

    The DHCR, on application of either party, or on its own initiative, and upon notice to all parties affected, may issue a superseding order modifying or revoking any order issued by it under this or any previous Code where the DHCR finds that such order was the result of illegality, irregularity in vital matters or fraud. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 9 § 2527.8