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.

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

82 N.Y.2d 832, 627 N.E.2d 508, 606 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1993).
November 22, 1993