Case Name: Nancy Jancourtz et al., Respondents, and Daniel W. Joy, as Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Rent and Housing Maintenance of the City of New York, Intervenor-Respondent, v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., et al., Defendants, and North Assemblage Company et al., Appellants; Tudor City Association, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Daniel W. Joy, as Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Rent and Housing Maintenance of the City of New York, Intervenor-Respondent, v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., et al., Defendants, and North Assemblage Company et al., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1983-02-08
Citations: 58 N.Y.2d 861
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nancy Jancourtz et al., Respondents, and Daniel W. Joy, as Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Rent and Housing Maintenance of the City of New York, Intervenor-Respondent, v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., et al., Defendants, and North Assemblage Company et al., Appellants. Tudor City Association, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Daniel W. Joy, as Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Rent and Housing Maintenance of the City of New York, Intervenor-Respondent, v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., et al., Defendants, and North Assemblage Company et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 861–861

Head Matter:
Nancy Jancourtz et al., Respondents, and Daniel W. Joy, as Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Rent and Housing Maintenance of the City of New York, Intervenor-Respondent, v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., et al., Defendants, and North Assemblage Company et al., Appellants. Tudor City Association, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Daniel W. Joy, as Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Rent and Housing Maintenance of the City of New York, Intervenor-Respondent, v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., et al., Defendants, and North Assemblage Company et al., Appellants.
Submitted December 20, 1982;
decided February 8, 1983

Opinion:
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed, with $20 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements to intervenor-respondent, upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the actions and CPLR 5602 (subd [a], par 2) is not applicable.