Dinolfi v. Berkeley Associates Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dinolfi v. Berkeley Associates Co.

98 A.D.2d 644, 469 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20932

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 644 (Dinolfi v. Berkeley Associates Co.) 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

Dinolfi v. Berkeley Associates Co., 98 A.D.2d 644, 469 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20932 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Goldman, J.), entered January 24, 1983, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action and granting defendants’ cross motion to dismiss said cause of action unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Finding the sole issue to be whether a month-to-month tenancy was created by the landlord’s acceptance of rent after the lease’s expiration (see Real Property Law, § 232-c) and resolving that issue in the landlord’s favor, Special Term dismissed the first cause of action alleging wrongful eviction. Without reaching that issue we affirm since the tenant, who defaulted in the holdover proceeding, was evicted pursuant to lawful mandate of the court. The Civil Court judgment awarding possession to the landlord is a complete defense to the tenant’s action for wrongful eviction. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Ross and Lynch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Goldman, J.), entered January 24, 1983, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action and granting defendants’ cross motion to dismiss said cause of action unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Finding the sole issue to be whether a month-to-month tenancy was created by the landlord’s acceptance of rent after the lease’s expiration (see Real Property Law, § 232-c) and resolving that issue in the landlord’s favor, Special Term dismissed the first cause of action alleging wrongful eviction. Without reaching that issue we affirm since the tenant, who defaulted in the holdover proceeding, was evicted pursuant to lawful mandate of the court. The Civil Court judgment awarding possession to the landlord is a complete defense to the tenant’s action for wrongful eviction. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Ross and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 644, 469 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dinolfi-v-berkeley-associates-co-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack