Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Citation
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Parent Document
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2010-05-14
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6311519/payne-v-rivera/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (17)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
Full Text
942 charsAlso, respondents seek an order directing petitioner to cure housing code violations; yet the court file includes documents showing that on January 22, 2010 and March 1, 2010, respon*471dents requested an inspection of the premises by the City of New York’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), that inspections were scheduled for, respectively, February 17, 2010 and March 15, 2010, that different HPD inspectors2 went to the premises on the scheduled dates, and that on each occasion the inspector reported that there were no violations because he was unable to gain access to the premises. Respondents do not address this issue. Moreover, the counterclaim here for an order to correct extant housing code violations “has no bearing on the outcome of this summary . . . proceeding and, therefore, [must be] severed from the proceeding (see, CPLR 407).” (City of New York v Candelario, 223 AD2d 617, 618 [2d Dept 1996].)