 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
YORK JUDGE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPELLANTS MEMORANDUM PUBLICATION YORK REPORTS FAY LEOUSSIS RICHARD WOLFF CORPORATE RESPONDENT JAMES GREILSHEIMER INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS MUNICIPAL ART SOCIETY AMICUS CURIAE COSTS DIFFERENTIATE RESIDENTS REPLACEMENT NONCONFORMING WINDOWS CHIEF JUDGE KAYE JUDGES SIMONS TITONE HANCOCK BELLACOSA LEVINE CONCUR JUDGE SMITH |
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN M. RUDEY ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. LANDMARKS PRESERVATION
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., APPELLANTS, ET AL., RESPONDENT.
82 N.Y.2d 832, 627 N.E.2d 508, 606 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1993).
November 22, 1993
1 No. 210 (1993 NY Int. 241)
Decided November 22, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Fay Leoussis, for Appellants.
Richard I. Wolff, for corporate Respondent.
James G. Greilsheimer, for individual Respondents.
Municipal Art Society of New York, Inc., amicus curiae.
_________________________________________________________________
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Order affirmed, with costs. It was arbitrary and capricious in the
circumstances presented for the Landmarks Preservation Commission to
differentiate between two residents in the same building in setting
the timetable for replacement of nonconforming windows in both units.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Bellacosa and
Levine concur. Judge Smith took no part.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
