1770 East 14th Street Associates v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

1770 East 14th Street Associates v. Harris

209 A.D.2d 390, 619 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10923

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 7, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 390 (1770 East 14th Street Associates v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1770 East 14th Street Associates v. Harris, 209 A.D.2d 390, 619 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a purported action for ejectment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated March 18, 1993, which dismissed the action, without prejudice to bringing the action in the Civil Court of the City of New York.

[391]*391Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County; and it is further,

Ordered that the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, shall deliver to the Clerk of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, all papers filed in the action and certified copies of all minutes and entries.

The Supreme Court did not err in finding that this matter would be best resolved by the Civil Court of the City of New York (see generally, RPAPL 701 et seq.; Civil Ct Act § 204). However, rather than dismissing the action, the Supreme Court should have transferred the matter to the Civil Court (see, NY Const, art VI, § 19 [a]). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a purported action for ejectment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated March 18, 1993, which dismissed the action, without prejudice to bringing the action in the Civil Court of the City of New York.

[391]*391Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County; and it is further,

Ordered that the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, shall deliver to the Clerk of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, all papers filed in the action and certified copies of all minutes and entries.

The Supreme Court did not err in finding that this matter would be best resolved by the Civil Court of the City of New York (see generally, RPAPL 701 et seq.; Civil Ct Act § 204). However, rather than dismissing the action, the Supreme Court should have transferred the matter to the Civil Court (see, NY Const, art VI, § 19 [a]). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 390, 619 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1770-east-14th-street-associates-v-harris-nyappdiv-1994.