Legal Opinion · Concurrence

City of New York v. Torres

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided April 24, 1995Published

1ConcurrenceKristin Booth Glen, J.

While I join in the result set forth in the Per Curiam opinion, I would find as a matter of law that Housing Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this summary proceeding because petitioner City of New York (the City) has failed to state a cause of action.

As a governmental entity, the City may not terminate the tenancies of tenants in in rem buildings without cause (512 E. 11th St. HDFC v Grimmet, 181 AD2d 488 [1st Dept 1992]; 157 W. 123rd St. Tenants’ Assn. v Hickson, 142 Misc 2d 984 [App Term, 1st Dept 1989]). The issue is whether the mere placement by the Department of Housing…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. 512 East 11th Street HDFC v. GrimmetAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  2. In re the Department of BuildingsNew York Court of Appeals · 1964
  3. 157 West 123rd St. Tenants Assn. v. HicksonNew York Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Department of Housing Preservation & Development of New York v. Mill River Realty, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
  5. Eyedent v. Vickers ManagementAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API