Parkchester Apts. Co. v. Lefkowitz
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum. We conclude that the Attorney-General was not justified in refusing to review petitioner’s resulbmission, “ even for the .purpose of determining whether specific deficiencies have been rectified, or new ones found to exist ’ ’, solely on the ground that litigation was pending with respect to a related property. (Cf. Matter of Whalen v. Lefkowitz, 36 N Y 2d 75.)
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. We do not reach the issue tendered on oral argument as to the application in this case of chapter 1021 of the Laws of 1974.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Parkchester Apts. Co. v. LefkowitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Gonkjur Associates v. AbramsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Harbor Tower, Inc. v. AbramsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Parkview Holding Corp. v. JoyNew York Supreme Court · 1976
- Carroll McEntee & McGinley, Inc. v. Department of FinanceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.