City of New York v. Unsafe Building & Structure Number 147-21 Huxley Street

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. Unsafe Building & Structure Number 147-21 Huxley Street

99 A.D.2d 533, 471 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16749

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 533 (City of New York v. Unsafe Building & Structure Number 147-21 Huxley Street) 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

City of New York v. Unsafe Building & Structure Number 147-21 Huxley Street, 99 A.D.2d 533, 471 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to demolish an allegedly unsafe building, Enrique Felipa and Alphonso Robinson appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.), entered August 3, 1983, which granted the application. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted. Under the circumstances, appellants’ request for an adjournment of a few days should have been granted, especially since the testimony of the most knowledgeable witness, who was not then available, was necessary as to the essential issue of the case (see Distribuidora Nacional De Disco v Rappoport, 92 AD2d 559; Balogh v H.R.B. Caterers, 88 AD2d 136). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to demolish an allegedly unsafe building, Enrique Felipa and Alphonso Robinson appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.), entered August 3, 1983, which granted the application. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted. Under the circumstances, appellants’ request for an adjournment of a few days should have been granted, especially since the testimony of the most knowledgeable witness, who was not then available, was necessary as to the essential issue of the case (see Distribuidora Nacional De Disco v Rappoport, 92 AD2d 559; Balogh v H.R.B. Caterers, 88 AD2d 136). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 533, 471 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-unsafe-building-structure-number-147-21-huxley-street-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack