Return to New Filings Page


For October 6, 2023 through October 12, 2023, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

MATTER OF 160 E. 84th v DHCR (Index No. 157576/20) (202 AD3d 610):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 2/24/22; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 9/21/23; Landlord and Tenant-Rent Regulation--Whether respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had the authority to issue explanatory addenda to prior rent deregulation orders; whether the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA)'s repeal of luxury deregulation provisions applies to luxury deregulation orders issued prior the enactment of the HSTPA, regardless of whether such application is denominated retroactive or not; whether a DHCR order deregulating an apartment, with implementation to occur at the end of the lease then in effect, may be nullified due to the lease expiring after an intervening change in law; Supreme Court, New York County, among other things, denied petition to annul respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR) "Explanatory Addenda" to a rent deregulation order, to annual DHCR's order denying a petition for administrative review challenging the addenda, to reinstate the deregulation order, and dismissed the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78; App. Div. affirmed.

MATTER OF 160 E. 84th v DHCR (Index Nos. 157558, 157560 & 157579 & 157582/20) (205 AD3d 601):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 5/26/22; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 9/21/23; Landlord and Tenant-Rent Regulation--Whether respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had the authority to issue explanatory addenda to prior rent deregulation orders; whether the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA)'s repeal of luxury deregulation provisions applies to luxury deregulation orders issued prior the enactment of the HSTPA, regardless of whether such application is denominated retroactive or not; whether a DHCR order deregulating an apartment, with implementation to occur at the end of the lease then in effect, may be nullified due to the lease expiring after an intervening change in law; Supreme Court, New York County, denied petitions to annul respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR) "Explanatory Addenda" to a rent deregulation orders, to annul DHCR's orders denying petitions for administrative review challenging the addenda, to reinstate the deregulation orders, and dismissed the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78; App. Div. affirmed.

MATTER OF 160 E. 84th v DHCR (Index No. 157557/20) (209 AD3d 517):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 10/18/22; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 9/21/23; Landlord and Tenant-Rent Regulation--Whether respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had the authority to issue explanatory addenda to prior rent deregulation orders; whether the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA)'s repeal of luxury deregulation provisions applies to luxury deregulation orders issued prior the enactment of the HSTPA, regardless of whether such application is denominated retroactive or not; whether a DHCR order deregulating an apartment, with implementation to occur at the end of the lease then in effect, may be nullified due to the lease expiring after an intervening change in law; Supreme Court, New York County, denied petition to annul respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR) "Explanatory Addenda" to rent deregulation order, to annul DHCR's order denying petition for administrative review challenging the addenda, to reinstate the deregulation order, and dismissed the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78; App. Div. affirmed.

MATTER OF 1700 YORK AVE. v DHCR (Index No. 157893/20) (209 AD3d 477):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 10/13/22; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 9/21/23; Landlord and Tenant-Rent Regulation--Whether respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had the authority to issue explanatory addenda to prior rent deregulation orders; whether the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA)'s repeal of luxury deregulation provisions applies to luxury deregulation orders issued prior the enactment of the HSTPA, regardless of whether such application is denominated retroactive or not; whether a DHCR order deregulating an apartment, with implementation to occur at the end of the lease then in effect, may be nullified due to the lease expiring after an intervening change in law; Supreme Court, New York County, denied petition to annul respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR) "Explanatory Addenda" to a rent deregulation order, to annul DHCR's order denying a petition for administrative review challenging the addenda, to reinstate the deregulation order, and dismissed the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78; App. Div. affirmed.

MATTER OF 87th ST. SHERRY v DHCR (Index Nos. 153992, 159887 & 154002/20) (209 AD3d 477):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 10/13/22; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 9/21/23; Landlord and Tenant-Rent Regulation--Whether respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had the authority to issue explanatory addenda to prior rent deregulation orders; whether the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA)'s repeal of luxury deregulation provisions applies to luxury deregulation orders issued prior the enactment of the HSTPA, regardless of whether such application is denominated retroactive or not; whether a DHCR order deregulating an apartment, with implementation to occur at the end of the lease then in effect, may be nullified due to the lease expiring after an intervening change in law; Supreme Court, New York County, denied petitions to annul respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR) "Explanatory Addenda" to rent deregulation orders, to annul DHCR's orders denying petitions for administrative review challenging the addenda, to reinstate the deregulation orders, and dismissed the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78; App. Div. affirmed.

MATTER OF 87th ST. SHERRY v DHCR (Index No. 153995/20) (202 AD3d 610): 1st Dept. App. Div. order of 2/24/22; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 9/21/23; Landlord and Tenant-Rent Regulation--Whether respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had the authority to issue explanatory addenda to prior rent deregulation orders; whether the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA)'s repeal of luxury deregulation provisions applies to luxury deregulation orders issued prior the enactment of the HSTPA, regardless of whether such application is denominated retroactive or not; whether a DHCR order deregulating an apartment, with implementation to occur at the end of the lease then in effect, may be nullified due to the lease expiring after an intervening change in law; Supreme Court, New York County, among other things, denied petition to annul respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR) "Explanatory Addenda" to a rent deregulation order, to annul DHCR's order denying a petition for administrative review challenging the addenda, to reinstate the deregulation order, and dismissed the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78; App. Div. affirmed.

MATTER OF 87th ST. SHERRY v DHCR (Index No. 153999/20) (202 AD3d 610):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 2/24/22; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 9/21/23; Landlord and Tenant-Rent Regulation--Whether respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had the authority to issue explanatory addenda to prior rent deregulation orders; whether the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA)'s repeal of luxury deregulation provisions applies to luxury deregulation orders issued prior the enactment of the HSTPA, regardless of whether such application is denominated retroactive or not; whether a DHCR order deregulating an apartment, with implementation to occur at the end of the lease then in effect, may be nullified due to the lease expiring after an intervening change in law; Supreme Court, New York County, among other things, denied petition to annul respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR) "Explanatory Addenda" to a rent deregulation order, to annul DHCR's order denying a petition for administrative review challenging the addenda, to reinstate the deregulation order, and dismissed the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78; App. Div. affirmed.

MATTER OF CLERMONT YORK v DHCR (Index No. 157776/20) (209 AD3d 484):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 10/13/22; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 9/21/23; Landlord and Tenant-Rent Regulation--Whether respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had the authority to issue explanatory addenda to prior rent deregulation orders; whether the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA)'s repeal of luxury deregulation provisions applies to luxury deregulation orders issued prior the enactment of the HSTPA, regardless of whether such application is denominated retroactive or not; whether a DHCR order deregulating an apartment, with implementation to occur at the end of the lease then in effect, may be nullified due to the lease expiring after an intervening change in law; Supreme Court, New York County, denied the petition to annul respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR) September 6, 2019 "Explanatory Addenda" to a rent deregulation order dated April 5, 2019, to annul DHCR's August 6, 2020 order denying the petition for administrative review challenging the addenda, and to reinstate the deregulation order, and dismissed the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78; App. Div. affirmed.

For October 13, 2023 through October 19, 2023, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

FLANDERS v GOODFELLOW (215 AD3d 1248):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 4/28/23; affirmance, leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 9/21/23; Animals--Liability and Animal Bite--Whether plaintiff demonstrated material issues of fact with respect to defendants' knowledge of their dog's vicious propensities; whether the courts below properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's negligence cause of action for injuries caused by a domestic animal; Supreme Court, Onondaga County, granted motion of defendants for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint; App. Div. affirmed.

LIVELY, (EUGENE L.), PEOPLE v (218 AD3d 1312):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 7/28/23; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Bannister, J., 10/10/23; Crimes--Unlawful Search and Seizure--Whether warrantless search of defendant's person and residence by parole officer was unreasonable and in violation of the Fourth Amendment; County Court, Jefferson County, convicted defendant upon a nonjury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree; App. Div. affirmed.

MATTER OF SMITH v PELAGALLI (2023 NY Slip Op 75089[U]):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 10/10/23; dismissal; sua sponte examination of whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; Dismissal and Nonsuit; App. Div. granted motion to dismiss proceeding for failure to state a cause of action.

MATTER OF SMITH v PELAGALLI:
3rd Dept. App. Div. paper, Individual Judge, 10/10/23; sua sponte examination of whether any jurisdictional basis exists for an appeal as of right; Motions and Orders-- Order to Show Cause; Individual Justice of the App. Div. declined to sign order to show cause.

VAUGHN (DAVID), PEOPLE v (217 AD3d 781):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 6/14/23; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Rivera, J., 9/28/23; Crimes--Identification of Defendant--Whether Supreme Court abused its discretion by limiting the defense expert's testimony regarding certain factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness identifications; whether the People presented sufficient corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the crime to obviate the need for an additional inquiry; Supreme Court, Kings County, convicted defendant of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposed sentence; App. Div. affirmed.