Judgment affirmed, without costs.
On the facts of this case, the request and proposals of petitioner to respondent constituted an application for reinstatement as a tenant and the decision of respondent was subject to review in a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR. There was sufficient evidence to justify respondent's decision, however, and the decision cannot be said to have been arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion (CPLR 7803, subd. 3;
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.