Legal Opinion
78/79 York Associates v. Rand
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided January 28, 1998PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Timmie Erin Elsner, J.
Petitioner moves in this nonpayment proceeding for an order to “renew” its application to strike respondent’s second counterclaim1 upon the ground that it is barred by the recently amended CPLR 213-a. Respondent opposes.2
The issues before the court are (1) whether petitioner’s motion to renew is timely; and if so, (2) whether the recent amendment of CPLR 213-a mandates a reconsideration of the court’s initial denial of petitioner’s application to strike respondent’s claim for rent overcharge.
Procedural History
Respondent took occupancy of the premises…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Foley v. RocheAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- 509 Sixth Avenue Corp. v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1964
- Phoenix Acquisition Corp. v. Campcore, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Neufeld v. NeufeldDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Rahabi v. MorrisonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- MacBride v. PishvaianCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
- Shelton v. Elite Model Management, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 2005
- Myers v. FrankelAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2000
- One Three Eight Seven Assoc. v. Commissioner of Division of Housing & Community Renewal of Office of Rent AdministrationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000