People ex rel. Bacchus v. Brann, 122 N.Y.S.3d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). · Go Syfert
Search
People ex rel. Bacchus v. Brann, 122 N.Y.S.3d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …the absence of contemporaneous dhcr filings does not allow for a lookback beyond the four-year period to an earlier legal regulated rent reported to dhcr ( see corcoran v narrows bayview co., llc , 183 ad3d 511, 512 1st dept 2020) at p. 512 ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …the guidelines rate applicable shall be no greater than the rate in effect on the commencement date of the lease for which a timely offer should have been made. at p. 512 ⚠ not in text
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
People ex rel. Bacchus
v.
Brann
11671 451075/20 30046/20.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 28, 2020.
122 N.Y.S.3d 895
Published
People ex rel. Bacchus v Brann (2020 NY Slip Op 03060)
People v Brann
2020 NY Slip Op 03060
Decided on May 28, 2020
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on May 28, 2020
Acosta, P.J., Richter, Mazzarelli, Webber, González, JJ.

11671 451075/20 30046/20 Dkt. CR-36562-19NY

[*1]In re The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Alisha Bacchus, on behalf of David Pamblanco, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Cynthia Brann, Commissioner, New York City Department of Correction, Respondent-Respondent.




Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Alma Magaña of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Rachel Polisner of counsel), for respondent.



[*~A.D.3d 511–512]

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Marisol Martinez Alonso,J.), entered on or about November 15, 2019, denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We find that the writ of habeas corpus was properly denied (see CPLR 7010).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: May 28, 2020

CLERK