Bromberg v. McGoldrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bromberg v. McGoldrick

281 A.D. 1038, 121 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4258

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

DecidedMay 18, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 1038 (Bromberg v. McGoldrick) 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

Bromberg v. McGoldrick, 281 A.D. 1038, 121 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the State Rent Administrator from an order which vacated an order of said Administrator denying a certificate of eviction and directed the issuance of such a certificate. Order reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and petition dismissed, without costs. Coneededly, the landlord had available for his use several apartments, in properties of which he is part owner, a short distance from his office, none of which he would take even though they were heated and had better facilities than the tenant’s in this proceeding. In Matter of Bosenbluth V. Finkelstein (300 N. Y. 402), the premises were such that the landlord was not obliged to establish immediate and compelling necessity. Here there was such obligation. (Matter of Wisotshy v. McGoldriek, 279 App. Div. 1011, affd. 304 N. Y. 619.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur. [See 282 App. Div. 714.]

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

Appeal by the State Rent Administrator from an order which vacated an order of said Administrator denying a certificate of eviction and directed the issuance of such a certificate. Order reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and petition dismissed, without costs. Coneededly, the landlord had available for his use several apartments, in properties of which he is part owner, a short distance from his office, none of which he would take even though they were heated and had better facilities than the tenant’s in this proceeding. In Matter of Bosenbluth V. Finkelstein (300 N. Y. 402), the premises were such that the landlord was not obliged to establish immediate and compelling necessity. Here there was such obligation. (Matter of Wisotshy v. McGoldriek, 279 App. Div. 1011, affd. 304 N. Y. 619.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur. [See 282 App. Div. 714.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 1038, 121 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bromberg-v-mcgoldrick-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack