Coombes v. Griffen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coombes v. Griffen

178 A.D.2d 747, 577 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16043

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 747 (Coombes v. Griffen) 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

Coombes v. Griffen, 178 A.D.2d 747, 577 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Beisner, J.), entered August 16, 1990 in Dutchess County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to RPAPL article 7, denied respondent’s motion to, inter alia, vacate a judgment entered in favor of petitioner.

Respondent argues that petitioner was not the proper party to commence this summary proceeding to recover possession of the apartment he occupies and, therefore, the judgment awarding petitioner possession must be vacated. Although petitioner is not the owner of the premises occupied by respondent, it was the party that entered into an employment agreement with him. As part of that agreement and incidental to respondent’s employment, petitioner gave respondent the right to occupy the apartment. In addition, the record indicates that petitioner is named as the landlord on the leases between it and the other tenants. Consequently, there was "some relationship between the petitioner and the tenant [748]*748* * * justifying the entertainment of the suit” (Dulberg v Ebenhart, 68 AD2d 323, 329) and petitioner was an authorized party to commence this proceeding under the statute (see, RPAPL 721 [1]). We have examined respondent’s remaining arguments for reversal and find them lacking in merit.

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

—Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Beisner, J.), entered August 16, 1990 in Dutchess County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to RPAPL article 7, denied respondent’s motion to, inter alia, vacate a judgment entered in favor of petitioner.

Respondent argues that petitioner was not the proper party to commence this summary proceeding to recover possession of the apartment he occupies and, therefore, the judgment awarding petitioner possession must be vacated. Although petitioner is not the owner of the premises occupied by respondent, it was the party that entered into an employment agreement with him. As part of that agreement and incidental to respondent’s employment, petitioner gave respondent the right to occupy the apartment. In addition, the record indicates that petitioner is named as the landlord on the leases between it and the other tenants. Consequently, there was "some relationship between the petitioner and the tenant [748]*748* * * justifying the entertainment of the suit” (Dulberg v Ebenhart, 68 AD2d 323, 329) and petitioner was an authorized party to commence this proceeding under the statute (see, RPAPL 721 [1]). We have examined respondent’s remaining arguments for reversal and find them lacking in merit.

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 747, 577 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coombes-v-griffen-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack