§Why CasetextPricing

Richard Altman, Respondent,v.285 West Fourth LLC, Appellant.

Brief

21 Cited authorities

  1. Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7480 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 373 times
    In Roberts, this Court rejected DHCR's long-standing statutory interpretation and concluded that luxury deregulation was unavailable in any building during receipt of J–51 benefits (13 N.Y.3d at 285–287, 890 N.Y.S.2d 388, 918 N.E.2d 900).

  2. Borden ex rel. Others Similarly Situated v. 400 E. 55th St. Assocs., L.P.

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 8211 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 155 times
    Finding it "premature to dismiss class action allegations before an answer is served or pre-certification discovery has been taken"

  3. Dixon v. 105 W. 75th St. LLC

    148 A.D.3d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 77 times
    In Dixon, the Appellate Division, First Department held that, on a pre-answer motion to dismiss, the landlord satisfied its burden of demonstrating that it made the necessary improvements to qualify for first rent because it established that it substantially altered the character of the apartment in that it connected it to the new penthouse.

  4. Boyd v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 4806 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 60 times
    In Matter of Boyd v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 23 N.Y.3d 999, 992 N.Y.S.2d 764, 16 N.E.3d 1243 (2014), rev'g 110 A.D.3d 594, 973 N.Y.S.2d 609 (1st Dept. 2013), a J–51 case, the Court of Appeals reversed this Court's remand to DHCR for a fact-finding hearing regarding potential fraud and the legality of the base date rent.

  5. Roberts v. Tishman Speyer

    62 A.D.3d 71 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 71 times
    Noting that the statutory scheme draws no distinction “based on whether a J–51 property was already subject to regulation prior to the receipt of such benefits”

  6. Jemrock Realty Co. v. Krugman

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 211 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 31 times

    No. 59 SSM 59. Decided January 14, 2010. APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered May 19, 2009. The Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (op 18 Misc 3d 15), which had (1) reversed an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered after a non-jury trial, to the extent it determined

  7. Boyd v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

    110 A.D.3d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 22 times

    2013-10-29 In re Kelley S. BOYD, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, et al., Respondents–Respondents, C–Uptown Realty, et al., Respondents. Kelley S. Boyd, appellant pro se. Gary R. Connor, New York (Jack Kuttner of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, respondent. MAZZARELLI Kelley S. Boyd, appellant pro se.Gary R. Connor, New York (Jack Kuttner of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal

  8. Altman v. 285 West Fourth, LLC

    127 A.D.3d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 19 times

    14968, 155942/14. 04-28-2015 Richard ALTMAN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 285 WEST FOURTH, LLC, Defendant–Respondent.  Lawrence W. Rader, New York, for appellant. Amsterdam & Lewinter, LLP, New York (Joseph P. Mitchell of counsel), for respondent. Lawrence W. Rader, New York, for appellant. Amsterdam & Lewinter, LLP, New York (Joseph P. Mitchell of counsel), for respondent. TOM, J.P., SWEENY, MANZANET–DANIELS, CLARK, KAPNICK, JJ. Opinion Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County

  9. Aimco 322 E. 61st St., LLC v. Brosius

    50 Misc. 3d 10 (N.Y. App. Term 2015)   Cited 16 times

    570729/15 11-12-2015 AIMCO 322 EAST 61ST STREET, LLC, Petitioner–Landlord–Respondent, v. Charlotte BROSIUS, Respondent–Tenant,–and–Gene Brosius, Respondent–Tenant–Appellant.   Sokolski & Zekaria, P.C., New York City (Daphna Zekaria of counsel), for appellant. Rosman and Associates, New York City (Tracy Boshart of counsel), for Aimco 322 East 61st Street, LLC, respondent. PER CURIAM. Sokolski & Zekaria, P.C., New York City (Daphna Zekaria of counsel), for appellant. Rosman and Associates, New

  10. Altman v. 285 West Fourth LLC

    143 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 13 times

    10-04-2016 Richard ALTMAN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. 285 WEST FOURTH LLC, Defendant–Appellant. Rent Stabilization Association of N.Y.C., Inc., Community Housing Improvement Program, Inc. and Real Estate Board of New York, Amici Curiae. Amsterdam & Lewinter, LLP, New York (Joseph P. Mitchell of counsel), for appellant. Lawrence W. Rader, New York, for respondent. Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), For Amici Curiae. Amsterdam & Lewinter, LLP, New York (Joseph P

  11. Section 500.13 - Content and form of briefs in normal course appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.13

    (a) Content. All briefs shall conform to the requirements of section 500.1 of this Part and contain a table of contents, a table of cases and authorities, questions presented, point headings, and, if necessary, a disclosure statement pursuant to section 500.1(f) of this Part. Such disclosure statement shall be included before the table of contents in the party's principal brief. Appellant's brief shall include a statement showing that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and to review