Legal Opinion
Elkin v. Roldan
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 21, 1999PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*855OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
In each case, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, and the matters remitted to Supreme Court, with directions to remand to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum, and, as so modified, affirmed.
Michael and Susan Elkin reside in a rent-stabilized apartment in New York City. In March 1995, pursuant to the luxury-decontrol provisions of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1993 (L 1993, ch 253), the Elkins’ landlord sent them an Income Certification Form (IGF), on…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Van Clief v. . Van VechtenNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Dworman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Flora Co. v. IngilisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Elkin v. RoldanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dworman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Meyerson v. Prime Realty Services, LLCNew York Supreme Court · 2005
- IG Second Generation Partners L.P. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002