From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 16, 2007
44 A.D.3d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

October 16, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered on or about May 22, 2007, which, in a declaratory judgment action challenging defendant's authority to condemn multiple dwellings in which plaintiffs reside as rent stabilized tenants, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Before: Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Marlow, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.


Since the condemned buildings are located in Kings County, the Appellate Division, Second Department, has exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiffs' challenges herein to defendants constitutional and statutory authority to condemn their rent stabilized leasehold interests (EDPL 207). We reject plaintiffs' argument that they are not "condemnees" within the meaning of EDPL 103 (C), and therefore lack standing to seek relief under EDPL 207 ( see Matter of City of New York, 306 NY 278, 282). Any lingering concern that plaintiffs may have in this regard ought to have been allayed by defendant's main argument herein that plaintiffs do have standing ( see Gale P. Elston, P.C. v Dubois, 18 AD3d 301, 303 [doctrine of judicial estoppel]).


Summaries of

Anderson v. New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 16, 2007
44 A.D.3d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Anderson v. New York

Case Details

Full title:ELISELLE ANDERSON et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 16, 2007

Citations

44 A.D.3d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
842 N.Y.S.2d 909

Citing Cases

Peter Williams Enters., Inc. v. N.Y. Urban Dev. Corp.

In support of its motion, ESDC argues that the petition should be dismissed because in Matter of Goldstein,…