Legal Opinion

Mott v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided August 15, 1988PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

2Per curiam

The petitioner is the landlord of a rent-regulated accommodation governed by the provisions of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (hereinafter the ETPA) (see, McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 8621, et seq; L 1974, ch 576, § 4, as amended). The District Rent Administrator rendered a determination in favor of the tenant, the respondent Salz, and on February 5, 1985, the petitioner mailed a petition for administrative review (hereinafter PAR) to the respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal of the State of New York (hereinafter the DHCR), challenging the…

3Cases cited3 opinions

  1. 140 West 57th Street Corp. v. State Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  2. Bloom v. Division of Housing & Community RenewalNew York Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Schoenstein v. McGoldrickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952

4Cited by9 opinions

  1. Mott v. Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  2. Daniel v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalNew York Supreme Court · 1998
  3. People v. NunezNew York Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Raynes Associates Ltd. Partnership v. State Division of Housing & Community RenewalNew York Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Dorchester Associates v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API