![]() Parcel One Co., 170 A.D.2d 344, 345), the situation here is distinguishable in that the allegation that plaintiff obtained possession of the apartment by fraudulent means is not a curable breach ( see 28 RCNY 3-18 Matter of Waterside Redev. Although plaintiff cites cases which have authorized Supreme Court injunctive relief where a tenant cannot obtain a post-judgment opportunity to cure ( see Lexington Ave. We reject the motion court's conclusion that injunctive relief was appropriate because plaintiff could not obtain adequate relief in Civil Court.We further noted that "primary administrative review is particularly important where the matters under consideration are inherently technical and peculiarly within the expertise of the agency" ( id.), and that the issue of whether a building is subject to rent regulation was clearly within DHCR's expertise. ![]() ![]() matters should await exhaustion of administrative remedies" ( id. We reversed, finding that under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, "judicial review of these. In granting injunctive relief and denying defendant's cross motion to dismiss plaintiffs' declaratory judgment action, Supreme Court rejected the defendant's argument that the issue should first be considered by DHCR. ( supra), the plaintiffs-tenants sought a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant cooperative from withdrawing from the Mitchell-Lama program, which plaintiffs feared would cause their apartments to lose rent-stabilized status. Defendant and all other Mitchell-Lama cooperatives and rental housing units operate under the regulatory oversight of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). Defendant is a limited-profit cooperative housing corporation created pursuant to Article 2 of the New York State Private Housing Finance Law, also known as the Mitchell-Lama Law. Plaintiff is the cooperative shareholder of apartment 4D in a residential building located at 75 Montgomery Street, owned by defendant Gouverneur Gardens Housing Corporation."`hile concurrent jurisdiction does exist, where there is an administrative agency which has the necessary expertise to dispose of an issue, in the exercise of discretion, resort to a judicial tribunal should be withheld pending resolution of the administrative proceeding'" ( id. "The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is intended to coordinate the relationship between courts and administrative agencies to the end that divergence of opinion between them not render ineffective the statutes with which both are concerned, and to the extent that the matter before the court is within the agency's specialized field, to make available to the court in reaching its judgment the agency's views concerning not only the factual and technical issues involved but also the meaning of the statute administered by the agency" ( Capital Tel.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |