Legal Opinion
Dworman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 21, 1999PublishedCited by 51 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Chief Judge Kaye.
At issue in these cases is whether the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) has authority to accept late responses from rent-stabilized tenants certifying that their income is below the statutory threshold, and thus that their apartments are not subject to “luxury decontrol” under the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1993. We hold that DHCR has authority to accept late responses, and therefore we remit Dworman and Sudarsky to the Division for consideration of the reasons for the tenants’ tardiness in providing the required information. In Seymour,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Kurcsics v. Merchants Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Brusco v. BraunNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Cortlandt Nursing Home v. AxelrodNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Van Clief v. . Van VechtenNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Rosen v. Public Employment Relations BoardNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- MATTER OF YARBOUGH v. FrancoNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
- Gilman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
- Murphy v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalNew York Court of Appeals · 2013
- Drucker v. MauroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Rizzo v. New York State Division of Housing & Community RenewalNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.