In the Matter of LEONA DWORMAN, Respondent,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Appellant, and 40 CENTRAL PARK SOUTH, INC., Intervenor-Appellant.
In the Matter of JULIE SEYMOUR, Respondent,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Appellant.
In the Matter of PETER SUDARSKY et al., Appellants,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL et al., Respondents.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued November 18, 1999.
Decided December 21, 1999.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Roderick J. Walters, New York City, and Marcia P. Hirsch for appellant in the first and second above-entitled proceedings.
Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler & Schwartz, P. C., New York City (Jeffrey R. Metz and Robert D. Goldstein of counsel), for intervenor-appellant in the first above-entitled proceeding.
Karlsson & Ng, P. C., New York City (Kent Karlsson and James Hivnor of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled proceeding.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, L. L. P., New York City (Thomas J. Schwarz and Bentley Kassal of counsel), for respondent in the second above-entitled proceeding.
Fishman & Neil, New York City (Steven A. Neil of counsel), for appellants in the third above-entitled proceeding.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Marion R. Buchbinder and Robert A. Forte of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, respondent in the third above-entitled proceeding.
Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler & Schwartz, P. C., New York City (Jeffrey R. Metz and Robert D. Goldstein of counsel), for Langham Mansions Company and another, respondents in the third above-entitled proceeding.
Judges BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK, WESLEY and ROSENBLATT concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
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...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
