Legal Opinion
Estate of Goldman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 6, 1996PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal properly held that the tenants’ Fair Market Rent Appeal was timely filed, since petitioner failed to establish that it properly served the tenants with the required initial legal regulated rent notice (Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-513 [b] [1]; [d]; see, Matter of McKenzie v Mirabal, 155 AD2d 194). Petitioner failed to serve the notice by certified mail (see, Matter of Alcoma Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 79 NY2d 834, affg 170 AD2d 324), and, based upon the record, the Rent Administrator properly found…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Salvati v. EimickeNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- Cupo v. McGoldrickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
- Rubin v. EimickeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Matter of Alcoma Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. RenewalNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- McKenzie v. MirabalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Weinreb v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. New York City Board of Collective BargainingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Hernandez v. LancasterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Matter of Haskin v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
- Sendowski v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996