Legal Opinion

Amsterdam Manhattan Associates v. Joy

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1976PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtAbraham J. Gellinoff, J.

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, and two companion proceedings (Matter of Taleff Realty v Joy, Index No. 42765-75; Matter of Seven Parks Assoc. v Joy, Index No. 20929-75), petitioners landlords challenge determinations of respondent commissioner which ruled that upon the elimination of electrical service included in maximum rent, the rent decrease schedule to be applied was the revised, newly effective schedule, and not the schedule in effect at the time of petitioners’ applications.

Respondent correctly cites the general rule that the regulation in effect at the time of determination…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Parkchester Apts. Co. v. LefkowitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
  2. Vanderbilt 77th Associates v. Conciliation & Appeals BoardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Scholtz Partnership v. District of Columbia Rental Accommodations CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API