De Kosenko v. Brandt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Kosenko v. Brandt

31 A.D.2d 612, 295 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2750

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 612 (De Kosenko v. Brandt) 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

De Kosenko v. Brandt, 31 A.D.2d 612, 295 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

—• Order, entered on August 5, 1968, granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint iby adding a seventh cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and motion denied. Plaintiff seeks to add a cause of action in which she asks for treble damages because of an unlawful eviction which occurred in October, 1966. Such cause of action is based upon New York City Local Law No. 49, which was enacted in July, 1967 and which added subdivision j to section Y5111.0 of the Administrative Code. Local Law No. 49 is penal in nature, and, since no contrary intention is expressed therein, it should not be retroactively applied to an eviction which occurred substantially before it was enacted. (44 N. Y. Jur., Penalties and Forfeitures, § 8, pp. 178-179.) “The general rule is that statutes are to be construed as prospective only * * * It takes a clear expression of the legislative purpose to justify a retroactive application [citing eases]”. (Jacobus v. Colgate, 217 N. Y. 235, 240; Matter of Container Co. [Corsi], 298 N. Y. 277.) Concur—Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

—• Order, entered on August 5, 1968, granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint iby adding a seventh cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and motion denied. Plaintiff seeks to add a cause of action in which she asks for treble damages because of an unlawful eviction which occurred in October, 1966. Such cause of action is based upon New York City Local Law No. 49, which was enacted in July, 1967 and which added subdivision j to section Y5111.0 of the Administrative Code. Local Law No. 49 is penal in nature, and, since no contrary intention is expressed therein, it should not be retroactively applied to an eviction which occurred substantially before it was enacted. (44 N. Y. Jur., Penalties and Forfeitures, § 8, pp. 178-179.) “The general rule is that statutes are to be construed as prospective only * * * It takes a clear expression of the legislative purpose to justify a retroactive application [citing eases]”. (Jacobus v. Colgate, 217 N. Y. 235, 240; Matter of Container Co. [Corsi], 298 N. Y. 277.) Concur—Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 612, 295 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-kosenko-v-brandt-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack