Legal Opinion

Copeland v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1994PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Martin Schoenfeld, J.

In this interesting and well-briefed CPLR article 78 proceeding the sole legal issue presented, simply stated, is whether the "substantial rehabilitation” of a multiple dwelling terminates the "rent stabilization” protection of a tenant in continuous occupancy of an unimproved apartment. Petitioner landlord Tatiana Copeland now moves (1) to vacate a determination by respondent agency New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) that a rehabilitation did not terminate stabilization protection, and (2) for a judgment declaring that the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Salvati v. EimickeNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
  2. Goodman v. RamirezCivil Court of the City of New York · 1979
  3. Eastern Pork Products Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  4. Pape v. DoarAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
  5. Shubert v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. 12th Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API