Legal Opinion

Amsterdam v. Goldstick

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided September 18, 1987PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

2Per curiam

Order entered March 17, 1986 affirmed, with $10 costs.

We affirm the order appealed from, substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Friedman in his opinions at the Civil Court (Amsterdam v Goldstick, 128 Misc 2d 374, on rearg 131 Misc 2d 131). The Housing Maintenance Code provision at issue requires that designated managing agents of multiple dwellings within the city "reside within the city or customarily and regularly attend a business office maintained within the city” (Administrative Code of City of New York § 27-2098 [a] [3]). What is sought in the legislative…

3Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Amsterdam v. GoldstickCivil Court of the City of New York · 1985
  2. Amsterdam v. GoldstickCivil Court of the City of New York · 1986

4Cited by1 opinion

  1. Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. 849 St. Nicholas EquitiesCivil Court of the City of New York · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API