IN RE: Application of 1504 ASSOCIATES (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

IN RE: Application of 1504 ASSOCIATES, L.P., Petitioner-Appellant, For a Judgment, etc., v. Paul A. ROLDAN, etc., Respondent-Respondent.

Decided: February 09, 1999

WILLIAMS, J.P., WALLACH, TOM and MAZZARELLI, JJ.

Patrick K. Munson, for Petitioner-Appellant. Roderick J. Walters, for Respondent-Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 31, 1997, which denied petitioner's application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to modify respondent's termination of a finding of harassment so as to make such termination retroactive, either to the date that petitioner's predecessor paid the fine imposed on the finding of harassment, or to the date that petitioner acquired the premises, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The stipulation of settlement between petitioner and the tenants calling for a lifting of the finding of harassment nunc pro tunc as of the date the fine was paid was properly rejected by respondent as contrary to 9 NYCRR 2206.5(c), at least in the absence of “convincing evidence” that the conditions that led to the finding of harassment no longer existed as of the date such nunc pro tunc application was sought (cf., Matter of Meko Holding v. Joy, 107 A.D.2d 278, 282, 486 N.Y.S.2d 201, appeal dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 923).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law