Albert Martin Rosenblatt

This case concerned a landlord's application to the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) for certificates of partial eviction under New York City rent regulations, seeking to subdivide two under-occupied rent-controlled apartments in a Manhattan building to create a new duplex unit, based on the landlord's inability to achieve an 8.5% net annual return without evictions. DHCR granted the applications after an audit, inspection, hearing, and findings that the apartments were under-occupied and the financial condition was met, but one tenant died shortly after the final agency determination, deregulating her unit. The tenant challenged the determination in an Article 78 proceeding, and the trial court vacated DHCR's order and remitted the matter for the agency to consider the impact of the deregulation on the landlord's financial return. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal, holding that courts reviewing final DHCR determinations on eviction certificates may not consider or remit for de novo review of events arising after the agency's decision. The core reasoning was that Article 78 judicial review is strictly limited to the factual record before the agency at the time of its determination.

propertyprocedure

In People v. Stuart, the defendant was convicted of stalking under New York's Penal Law § 120.45 after repeatedly following a woman he did not know, despite her repeated refusals of his gifts and advances, causing her to fear for her safety and alter her routines. The defendant argued that the anti-stalking statute was unconstitutionally vague both on its face and as applied to him, seeking reversal of his conviction. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague because it requires an intentional course of conduct with no legitimate purpose that is likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm or mental or emotional harm to a specific person. The court reasoned that the statute provides adequate notice of prohibited conduct and sufficient guidelines for enforcement, particularly given its scienter element and the fact that it is not vague in all applications.

criminal law

In this personal injury case, a mother sued on behalf of her young child after he was struck by a livery cab that had been hit by a truck, obtaining a default judgment exceeding $4 million against the truck driver Densby who failed to appear at an inquest. The nonparty insurance carrier later moved under CPLR 5015(a)(3) to vacate the judgment, citing alleged inconsistencies between the plaintiff's verified complaint and her later deposition testimony as evidence of fraud or misconduct in procuring it. The Court of Appeals held that vacatur was improper, ruling that the original submissions (including the verified complaint, answers, and Densby's affidavit) sufficiently alleged a viable negligence claim for default purposes, and that the subsequent statements did not demonstrate the judgment had been obtained through fraud. The court therefore reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the default judgment against Densby.

proceduretorts & liability