183-185 Hester Street Corp. v. Dibari

New York Supreme Court

183-185 Hester Street Corp. v. Dibari

14 Misc. 2d 1004, 180 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2399

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 6, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 Misc. 2d 1004 (183-185 Hester Street Corp. v. Dibari) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

183-185 Hester Street Corp. v. Dibari, 14 Misc. 2d 1004, 180 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2399 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Neither the giving of the claimed oral notice of intention to vacate the premises nor the alleged availability of other housing accommodations to the tenant, both of which are in sharp dispute here, deprives the tenant of the protection of the State Residential Rent Law (L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd.) and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Even if the landlord were entitled to proceed without a certificate of eviction under section 52 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations ■— which is not the situation here, as landlord concedes that the tenant still resides in the subject premises — he has failed to comply with subdivision 3 of section 53 of the Rent Regulations requiring the filing with the Local Rent Administrator within 48 hours of a copy of the notice served on the tenant.

The final order should be reversed, with $30 costs, and final order directed in favor of tenant, dismissing the petition, with costs. Dismissal of counterclaim without prejudice affirmed.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Final order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Neither the giving of the claimed oral notice of intention to vacate the premises nor the alleged availability of other housing accommodations to the tenant, both of which are in sharp dispute here, deprives the tenant of the protection of the State Residential Rent Law (L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd.) and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Even if the landlord were entitled to proceed without a certificate of eviction under section 52 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations ■— which is not the situation here, as landlord concedes that the tenant still resides in the subject premises — he has failed to comply with subdivision 3 of section 53 of the Rent Regulations requiring the filing with the Local Rent Administrator within 48 hours of a copy of the notice served on the tenant.

The final order should be reversed, with $30 costs, and final order directed in favor of tenant, dismissing the petition, with costs. Dismissal of counterclaim without prejudice affirmed.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Final order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Misc. 2d 1004, 180 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/183-185-hester-street-corp-v-dibari-nysupct-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack