Baum Residence Corp. v. Van Rosson

206 Misc. 314, 134 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1954 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2519
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided May 27, 1954·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The trial judge should have granted the motion to dismiss made at the close of all the evidence. The bar against recovery of rent set forth in section 302 of the Multiple Dwelling Law; for the period during which a dwelling is occupied, when no certificate of occupancy as required by section 301 thereof has prior thereto been obtained, comprehends within its prohibition any action to recover for the use and occupation of the premises, however denominated. Such circumvention of the statute cannot be countenanced.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

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

Baum Residence Corp. v. Van Rosson, 206 Misc. 314, 134 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1954 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

206 Misc. 314 (Baum Residence Corp. v. Van Rosson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commercial Hotel, Inc. v. White
194 Misc. 2d 26 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
111 on 11 Realty Corp. v. Norton
189 Misc. 2d 389 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2001)
40 Clinton Street Associates v. Dolgin
126 Misc. 2d 373 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1984)
Lipkis v. Pikus
96 Misc. 2d 581 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1978)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1972
Washington Square Professional Building, Inc. v. Leader
68 Misc. 2d 72 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1971)
Dreamy Hollow Apartments Corp. v. Lewis
232 A.2d 346 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1967)