Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Downing v. First Lenox Terrace Associates
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 25, 2013Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDeGrasse, J.
I agree with the majority that the motion court erroneously granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. I write separately because the issue of whether plaintiffs could have waived their claims to penalties recoverable under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-516 (a) and Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2526.1 (a) (1) should not be addressed at this time, given the posture of this case.
The court granted defendants’ renewed motion for an order dismissing the complaint. Defendants had moved for dismissal on the ground that this action could not be maintained as…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pludeman v. NORTHERN LEASINGNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
- Bernstein v. Kelso & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Brinckerhoff v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Knapp v. MichauxAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
- Non-Emergency Transporters of New York, Inc. v. HammonsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.