People Ex Rel. Office of Rent Administration v. Berry Estates, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision. The 8 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Berry Estates, Inc. v. New York (2d Cir. 1987)
- Wendell Terrace Apts. v. Scruggs-Leftwich (District Court, E.D. New York 1984)
- Matter of PJB Equities, Inc. v. Village of Ossining (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- P & N Tiffany Properties, Inc. v. Village of Tuckahoe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Gboizo v. State of New York Division of Housing & Community Renewal (New York Supreme Court 2006)
- Pokoik v. Department of Health Services of County of Suffolk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Fallon v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal (New York Supreme Court 1992)
- Willoughby Nursing Home v. Axelrod (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs.
Insofar as appellants seek relief under subdivision (a) of section 9 of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L 1974, ch 576, §4), their claim is precluded by their failure to file an application for rent adjustment within 60 days of the local effective date of Resolution No. 4, whether that date be January 1,1979 or June 1,1979 (as calculated from this court’s dismissal of the motion for leave to appeal in the Mack case [People ex rel. Office of Rent Admin., Div. of Housing & Community Renewal v Mack, 88 Misc 2d 1047, affd 65 AD2d 681, mot for lv to app den 47 NY2d 706, 800]). To the extent that appellants seek “unusual remedies” predicated on our decision in Mayer v City Rent Agency (46 NY2d 139), the courts below found that the requisite “calculated action” on the part of the municipality designed to frustrate appellants’ rights was not present in this instance. This affirmed finding cannot be overturned on appeal to this court. Nor does this case fall within the scope of Matter of Our Lady of Good Counsel R. C. Church & School v Ball (38 NY2d 780, affg 45 AD2d 66, 73). Finally, we agree with the Appellate Division that *704 section 9 of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act comports with constitutional principles of equal protection and due process.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.