Contini v. Randall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Contini v. Randall

5 A.D.2d 844, 170 N.Y.S.2d 939, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6941

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 844 (Contini v. Randall) 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

Contini v. Randall, 5 A.D.2d 844, 170 N.Y.S.2d 939, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6941 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In summary holdover proceedings to recover possession of real property, the landlord appeals, by permission of this court, from two orders of the Appellate Term, dated February 20, 1957, which reversed final orders of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, First District, in favor of the landlord, and directed new trials by jury. Pursuant to rule XXVI of the rules of this court, the landlord has filed a stipulation for judgment absolute. Orders of the Appellate Term unanimously affirmed and order absolute directed in favor of respondents, with costs in all courts.. On the return day of the precepts, the proceedings were marked “adjourned by consent ” without any demand, at that time, for a jury trial. Such demand was filed on the adjourned date. The circumstances presented by this record do not warrant the finding of waiver of trial by jury.

Present — Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

In summary holdover proceedings to recover possession of real property, the landlord appeals, by permission of this court, from two orders of the Appellate Term, dated February 20, 1957, which reversed final orders of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, First District, in favor of the landlord, and directed new trials by jury. Pursuant to rule XXVI of the rules of this court, the landlord has filed a stipulation for judgment absolute. Orders of the Appellate Term unanimously affirmed and order absolute directed in favor of respondents, with costs in all courts.. On the return day of the precepts, the proceedings were marked “adjourned by consent ” without any demand, at that time, for a jury trial. Such demand was filed on the adjourned date. The circumstances presented by this record do not warrant the finding of waiver of trial by jury.

Present — Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 844, 170 N.Y.S.2d 939, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contini-v-randall-nyappdiv-1958.