Legal Opinion

Hartman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

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

Decided February 8, 1990PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The competent evidence in the record supports the determination of the respondent, which, therefore, meets the substantial evidence test (Matter of Bowley Assocs. v State of New York Ins. Dept., 98 AD2d 521, 527, affd 63 NY2d 982). The petitioners wanted to renovate the subject building for mixed professional office and luxury residence use and it is charged that they sought to force the remaining tenants to vacate the building with harassing tactics such as denying heat and hot water, employing extraordinarily destructive workmen to perform supposed renovation work in the public areas, and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Berenhaus v. WardNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. Matter of Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. BolandNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
  3. Bowley Associates, Ltd. v. State of New York Insurance DepartmentAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  4. Bowley Associates, Ltd. v. State of New York Insurance DepartmentNew York Court of Appeals · 1984

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Saewitz v. EpsteinDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1998
  2. Mauro v. Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
  3. Mauro v. Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API