Legal Opinion
Amsterdam v. Goldstick
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided May 28, 1985PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Lewis R. Friedman, J.
Petitioners, a number of tenants in 41 West 82 Street in Manhattan, seek an order pursuant to Housing Maintenance Code article 51 (Administrative Code of City of New York, ch 26, tit D, subtit V) to direct the owner and the managing agent for the premises to remove the 143 violations of record; they also seek an assessment of penalties for failure to correct the violations in a timely manner. The petitioners, joined by the respondent Department of Housing Preservation and Development (DHPD), further contend that the managing agent designation pursuant…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Rosgro Realty Co. v. BraynenAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1972
- People ex rel. Upchurch v. GittlesonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
- Frisch v. LiebowitzCivil Court of the City of New York · 1976
- Lipkis v. PikusCivil Court of the City of New York · 1978
- Corbin v. HarrisNew York Supreme Court · 1977
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. ArickCivil Court of the City of New York · 1986
- Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. 849 St. Nicholas EquitiesCivil Court of the City of New York · 1988
- Amsterdam v. GoldstickCivil Court of the City of New York · 1986
- Goldstein v. PerezCivil Court of the City of New York · 1986
- Amsterdam v. GoldstickCivil Court of the City of New York · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.