367 Realty Corp. v. Alvarez

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

367 Realty Corp. v. Alvarez

23 Misc. 2d 952, 206 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3371

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 22, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Misc. 2d 952 (367 Realty Corp. v. Alvarez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

367 Realty Corp. v. Alvarez, 23 Misc. 2d 952, 206 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It was improper to vacate final order upon the ground that landlord had failed to prove that a copy of the notice to vacate had been served upon the Local Rent Office, as required by section 53 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations. Due service of this notice was established at the trial. The ground asserted by the tenant as a basis for such vacatur, namely, failure to serve upon the Local Rent Office a copy of the 10 days’ notice to cure the violation, is likewise untenable since there is no such requirement in the regulations.

The order should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, without costs, and motion to vacate final order in favor of landlord denied. Issuance of warrant stayed to and including April 30, 1960, on condition that tenant continue to pay for use and occupation the same monthly rent as heretofore, in advance.

Concur — Di Giovanna, Benjamin and Daly, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

It was improper to vacate final order upon the ground that landlord had failed to prove that a copy of the notice to vacate had been served upon the Local Rent Office, as required by section 53 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations. Due service of this notice was established at the trial. The ground asserted by the tenant as a basis for such vacatur, namely, failure to serve upon the Local Rent Office a copy of the 10 days’ notice to cure the violation, is likewise untenable since there is no such requirement in the regulations.

The order should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, without costs, and motion to vacate final order in favor of landlord denied. Issuance of warrant stayed to and including April 30, 1960, on condition that tenant continue to pay for use and occupation the same monthly rent as heretofore, in advance.

Concur — Di Giovanna, Benjamin and Daly, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Misc. 2d 952, 206 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/367-realty-corp-v-alvarez-nyappterm-1960.