Dayton Towers, Inc. v. Wertheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dayton Towers, Inc. v. Wertheim

54 A.D.2d 749, 387 N.Y.S.2d 714

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 749 (Dayton Towers, Inc. v. Wertheim) 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

Dayton Towers, Inc. v. Wertheim, 54 A.D.2d 749, 387 N.Y.S.2d 714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 28, 1976, which, inter alia, granted its motion for summary judgment to the extent of requiring defendant to register his dog with plaintiff. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion for summary judgment denied. Plaintiff was required to give notice to its tenants of any regulation adopted by it restricting the harboring of dogs. The occupancy agreement executed by and between plaintiff and defendant requires notice, but does not require notice by mail. There is a dispute as to whether any notice was given and, hence, a trial is required to determine whether [750]*750plaintiff gave, and defendant received, notice of the regulation. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 28, 1976, which, inter alia, granted its motion for summary judgment to the extent of requiring defendant to register his dog with plaintiff. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion for summary judgment denied. Plaintiff was required to give notice to its tenants of any regulation adopted by it restricting the harboring of dogs. The occupancy agreement executed by and between plaintiff and defendant requires notice, but does not require notice by mail. There is a dispute as to whether any notice was given and, hence, a trial is required to determine whether [750]*750plaintiff gave, and defendant received, notice of the regulation. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 749, 387 N.Y.S.2d 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dayton-towers-inc-v-wertheim-nyappdiv-1976.