BEDFORD BLDG. CO. INC. v. Beame
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Jeter v. Kerr (District Court, S.D. New York 1977)
- Halprin v. 2 Fifth Avenue Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
- GRAMERCY SPIRE TENANTS'ASS'N v. Harris (District Court, S.D. New York 1977)
- Windsor Park Tenants' Ass'n v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
- Gramercy Spire Tenants' Ass'n v. Harris (District Court, S.D. New York 1977)
- Tenants' Union of West Side, Inc. v. Beame (N.Y. 1976)
- Allerton Coops Tenants Ass'n v. Biderman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Consumer Protection Board v. Public Service Commission (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Johnson v. Joy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- Housing & Development Administration v. Community Housing Improvement Program, Inc. (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
- Bedford Building Co. v. Beame (N.Y. 1976)
- 160 Columbia Heights Corp. v. Joy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
- Richardson v. Starr (New York Supreme Court 1975)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Again the court is called on by judicial construction to *731 insure the practical functioning of New York City’s rent-control program. We reiterate our distinct preference for remedial legislation (Matter of 89 Christopher v Joy, 35 NY2d 213, 220). We agree with the unanimous view at the Appellate Division, however, that "[u]nder the circumstances, in order to avoid turmoil in the housing industry and to enable landlords to maintain their buildings and to avoid large retroactive payments by tenants, an interim order is warranted.” (45 AD2d 950.) (Cf. Matter of Benson Realty Corp. v Kerr, 42 AD2d 1050, mot for lv to app den 33 NY2d 521.) We would only add that we find no merit to intervenors’ claim that the tenants are constitutionally entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before rents are adjusted (cf. Wasservogel v Meyerowitz, 300 NY 125).
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges >Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in Per Curiam opinion.
Order affirmed, with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.