Case Name: In the Matter of John M. Rudey et al., Respondents, v. Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of New York et al., Appellants, and 1030 Fifth Avenue Corporation, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1993-11-22
Citations: 82 N.Y.2d 832
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of John M. Rudey et al., Respondents, v Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of New York et al., Appellants, and 1030 Fifth Avenue Corporation, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 832–835

Head Matter:
[627 NE2d 508, 606 NYS2d 588]
In the Matter of John M. Rudey et al., Respondents, v Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of New York et al., Appellants, and 1030 Fifth Avenue Corporation, Respondent.
Argued October 6, 1993;
decided November 22, 1993
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
O. Peter Sherwood, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Fay Leoussis and Leonard Koerner of counsel), for appellants.
Tenzer, Greenblatt, Fallon & Kaplan, New York City (James G. Greilsheimer of counsel), and Berle, Kass & Case, New York City (Robert S. Davis of counsel), for John M. Rudey and another, respondents.
Richard I. Wolff, New York City, for 1030 Fifth Avenue Corporation, respondent.
Douglas N. Cogen, New York City, for Municipal Art Society of New York, Inc., amicus curiae.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
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.
Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Levine. Taking no part: Judge Smith.