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
876 charsWe start our analysis by noting that, despite petitioners’ contentions to the contrary, the gravamen of the instant combined action/proceeding is an attack on the validity of Local Law No. 73. That being the case, the City is clearly a necessary party — indeed, the preeminent party — in defending its own statute (see, CPLR 1001 [a]). The necessity of the City as a party is best exemplified by respondent’s observation that, caught in the middle of this procedural havoc, it agrees that the petition states a cause of action against it and that Local Law No. 73 may indeed violate the Urstadt Law. Given the City’s voluntary participation in this matter as evidenced by its motion to intervene on the ground that it is an interested party, joinder was a proper remedy and should have been granted by Supreme Court (see, Matter of Town of Preble v Zagata, 250 AD2d 912, 913).