D'Agostino v. Bernabel

269 A.D. 853, 56 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4244
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 18, 1945
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 269 A.D. 853 (D'Agostino v. Bernabel) 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
D'Agostino v. Bernabel, 269 A.D. 853, 56 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Opinion

This is a summary proceeding in which a judgment was entered in the Justice’s Court of the Town of Eastchester on October 16, 1944, in favor of the landlord. On November 16,1944, the tenant appealed to the County Court of Westchester County. Despite the fact that the appeal to the County Court was not taken within twenty days, as provided by section 428 of the Justice Court Act (L. 1920, ch. 937), the County Court entertained the appeal and vacated [854]*854and set aside the judgment, holding that it was a nullity because the thirty-day notice terminating the tenancy was not served in the manner prescribed by section 228 of the Real Property Law. The landlord appeals. Order of the County Court of Westchester County dated December 30, 1944, reversed on the law, and the judgment of the Justice’s Court reinstated, with costs in all courts. Appeal from order denying reargument dismissed, without costs. The County Court should have dismissed the appeal. (Garges Bros., Inc., v. Specht, 241 App. Div. 737; East Syracuse Motor Car Co. v. Tuttle, 230 App. Div. 872; Quackenbush v. Johnston, 249 App. Div. 452, 454.) Moreover, the judgment of the Justice’s Court was valid even though the notice terminating the tenancy was served by registered mail and not in accordance with the provisions of the statute. On the return day the tenant did not question the jurisdiction of the Justice’s Court, but appeared generally and asked for .time within which to vacate the premises. Under these circumstances, the Justice’s Court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the tenant, the latter waived any defect in the service of the notice. (J. H. Schneider & Co. v. Amendola, 113 N. Y. S. 517; Cutting v. Burns, 57 App. Div. 185.) Hagarty, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Lewis and Aldrich, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Cosmopolitan Aviation Corp.
474 N.E.2d 245 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Cosmopolitan Aviation Corp.
99 A.D.2d 767 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
1890 Realty Co. v. Ford
121 Misc. 2d 834 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1983)
Sember v. Loughrey
193 Misc. 573 (New York County Courts, 1948)
Di Perna v. Black
187 Misc. 437 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 A.D. 853, 56 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dagostino-v-bernabel-nyappdiv-1945.