Baiocco v. Charles H. Greenthal Management

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baiocco v. Charles H. Greenthal Management

220 A.D.2d 322, 633 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10406

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 322 (Baiocco v. Charles H. Greenthal Management) 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

Baiocco v. Charles H. Greenthal Management, 220 A.D.2d 322, 633 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10406 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered December 29, 1994, which denied plaintiff tenant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant landlords’ counterclaim for use and occupancy, and, upon a search of the record, granted defendants summary judgment on that counterclaim in the amount of $4,122.27, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to plaintiff’s contention that defendants’ failure to initiate holdover proceedings or demand rent during plaintiff’s holdover period should estop them from seeking payment for use and occupancy (see, 1400 Broadway Assocs. v Lee & Co., 161 Misc 2d 497, 500). Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are also without merit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal (Aguirre v City of New York, 214 AD2d 692, 694). [323]*323Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered December 29, 1994, which denied plaintiff tenant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant landlords’ counterclaim for use and occupancy, and, upon a search of the record, granted defendants summary judgment on that counterclaim in the amount of $4,122.27, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to plaintiff’s contention that defendants’ failure to initiate holdover proceedings or demand rent during plaintiff’s holdover period should estop them from seeking payment for use and occupancy (see, 1400 Broadway Assocs. v Lee & Co., 161 Misc 2d 497, 500). Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are also without merit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal (Aguirre v City of New York, 214 AD2d 692, 694). [323]*323Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 322, 633 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baiocco-v-charles-h-greenthal-management-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack