Copeland v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
New York Supreme Court
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
- Salvati v. EimickeNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- Goodman v. RamirezCivil Court of the City of New York · 1979
- 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
- Pape v. DoarAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- 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
- 12th Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003