Arbeitman v. Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arbeitman v. Goldman

10 A.D.2d 874, 200 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10590

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

DecidedApril 18, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 874 (Arbeitman v. Goldman) 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

Arbeitman v. Goldman, 10 A.D.2d 874, 200 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In a summary proceeding to recover possession of real property, the tenant appeals by permission of this court from an order- of the Appellate Term which affirmed (1) a final order of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, Fourth District, in favor of the landlord, and (2) a subsequent order of said court denying the tenant’s motion to vacate the final order. The premises were rented as a unit and consisted of a store with a four-room apartment at the rear. Whether the residential use or the business use was predominant was a contested issue. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, final order of Municipal Court vacated and petition dismissed, without prejudice to the institution of a proceeding de nova after determination .by the State Rent Administrator of the nature of the predominant use, the severability of the uses, and any other pertinent issues within the Administrator’s jurisdiction. Such determination, upon this record, is prerequisite to the maintenance of the summary proceeding. (Confederated Props. v. Nosek, 2 A D 2d 383; 610 West End Co. v. Cohen, 19 Misc 2d 130; Camp Fire Girls v. Jensen, 200 Misc. 540; cf. Matter of Region Holding Corp. v. Weaver, 4 A D 2d 766.) Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In a summary proceeding to recover possession of real property, the tenant appeals by permission of this court from an order- of the Appellate Term which affirmed (1) a final order of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, Fourth District, in favor of the landlord, and (2) a subsequent order of said court denying the tenant’s motion to vacate the final order. The premises were rented as a unit and consisted of a store with a four-room apartment at the rear. Whether the residential use or the business use was predominant was a contested issue. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, final order of Municipal Court vacated and petition dismissed, without prejudice to the institution of a proceeding de nova after determination .by the State Rent Administrator of the nature of the predominant use, the severability of the uses, and any other pertinent issues within the Administrator’s jurisdiction. Such determination, upon this record, is prerequisite to the maintenance of the summary proceeding. (Confederated Props. v. Nosek, 2 A D 2d 383; 610 West End Co. v. Cohen, 19 Misc 2d 130; Camp Fire Girls v. Jensen, 200 Misc. 540; cf. Matter of Region Holding Corp. v. Weaver, 4 A D 2d 766.) Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 874, 200 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arbeitman-v-goldman-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack