Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Citation
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Parent Document
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 1998-12-17
Other Sections in This Document (13)
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)
Full Text
790 charsPetitioners opposed the City’s motion to intervene and respondent’s cross motion to consolidate. The City, in response to the cross motion, opposed only that portion requesting venue in Albany County. Finally, numerous membership groups of New York City tenants (hereinafter tenant intervenors), which include rent-controlled tenants, sought, among other relief, to intervene in this matter. Supreme Court granted the City’s motion to intervene for the sole purpose of filing a motion to dismiss the proceeding, dismissed the petition finding that it failed to state a cause of action, denied respondent’s request to add the City as a necessary party and the cross motion to consolidate, and denied the tenant intervenors’ motion to intervene. Petitioners and the tenant intervenors appeal.