Darrow v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Darrow v. Roman

13 A.D.2d 921, 217 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10246

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

DecidedJune 13, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 921 (Darrow v. Roman) 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

Darrow v. Roman, 13 A.D.2d 921, 217 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10246 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

The determination of the Appellate Term, affirming the final order of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Second District, entered on August 27, 1959, dismissing the petition, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with costs to landlord appellant, and final order directed awarding possession of the premises to the landlord appellant. The landlord’s testimony as to the assault is uncontradicted and not inherently improbable. (Woodson v. New York City Housing Auth., 10 N Y 2d 30.) The evidence established conduct on the part of the tenant interfering substantially with the comfort and safety of the landlord within the meaning of section 5 (subd. 1, par. [b]) of the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law (L. 1950, eh. 250, as amd.) and subdivision 2 of section 52 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations. Under the provisions of subdivision 2 of section 584 of the Civil Practice Act, we should, on the appeal from a judgment rendered by the court without a jury, unless we affirm, grant the judgment which the court below ought to have granted. (Bernardine v. City of New York, 294 N. Y. 361, 366; York Mtge. Corp. v. Clotar Constr. Corp., 254 N Y. 128; Lamport v. Smedley, 213 N. Y. 82; Leonard v. Frantz Co., 268 App. Div. 144, 148 ; 9 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, § 177, p. 603, and eases cited therein.) Settle order on notice. Concur—Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

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

The determination of the Appellate Term, affirming the final order of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Second District, entered on August 27, 1959, dismissing the petition, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with costs to landlord appellant, and final order directed awarding possession of the premises to the landlord appellant. The landlord’s testimony as to the assault is uncontradicted and not inherently improbable. (Woodson v. New York City Housing Auth., 10 N Y 2d 30.) The evidence established conduct on the part of the tenant interfering substantially with the comfort and safety of the landlord within the meaning of section 5 (subd. 1, par. [b]) of the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law (L. 1950, eh. 250, as amd.) and subdivision 2 of section 52 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations. Under the provisions of subdivision 2 of section 584 of the Civil Practice Act, we should, on the appeal from a judgment rendered by the court without a jury, unless we affirm, grant the judgment which the court below ought to have granted. (Bernardine v. City of New York, 294 N. Y. 361, 366; York Mtge. Corp. v. Clotar Constr. Corp., 254 N Y. 128; Lamport v. Smedley, 213 N. Y. 82; Leonard v. Frantz Co., 268 App. Div. 144, 148 ; 9 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, § 177, p. 603, and eases cited therein.) Settle order on notice. Concur—Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 921, 217 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darrow-v-roman-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack