Dudic Holding Corp. v. Feinstein

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Dudic Holding Corp. v. Feinstein

205 Misc. 42, 129 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2729

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 10, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 205 Misc. 42 (Dudic Holding Corp. v. Feinstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dudic Holding Corp. v. Feinstein, 205 Misc. 42, 129 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The installation and maintenance by the tenant of an air conditioning unit projecting beyond the building wall is an intrusion or squatting upon the landlord’s property within [43]*43the purview of section 1411 of the Civil Practice Act (Joan Bldg. Corp. v. Gould, 276 App. Div. 765; Tuchfeld v. Annenberg, N. Y. L. J. May 18, 1951, p. 1849, col. 5; Thatford Stone Corp. v. Sassano, N. Y. L. J., June 27, 1952, p. 2521, col. 2; Goldstein v. Alweiss, 196 Misc. 513; Prestipino v. Matarazzo, 99 N. Y. S. 2d 606; Kaplan v. Sessler, 197 Misc. 270). Insofar as Taft Constr. Corp. v. Bachnoff (107 N. Y. S. 2d 898, affd. 116 N. Y. S. 2d 67) is to the contrary, we must decline to follow it.

The final order should be unanimously reversed upon the law, with $30 costs to the landlord and final order directed for the landlord as prayed for in the petition.

Walsh, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The installation and maintenance by the tenant of an air conditioning unit projecting beyond the building wall is an intrusion or squatting upon the landlord’s property within [43]*43the purview of section 1411 of the Civil Practice Act (Joan Bldg. Corp. v. Gould, 276 App. Div. 765; Tuchfeld v. Annenberg, N. Y. L. J. May 18, 1951, p. 1849, col. 5; Thatford Stone Corp. v. Sassano, N. Y. L. J., June 27, 1952, p. 2521, col. 2; Goldstein v. Alweiss, 196 Misc. 513; Prestipino v. Matarazzo, 99 N. Y. S. 2d 606; Kaplan v. Sessler, 197 Misc. 270). Insofar as Taft Constr. Corp. v. Bachnoff (107 N. Y. S. 2d 898, affd. 116 N. Y. S. 2d 67) is to the contrary, we must decline to follow it.

The final order should be unanimously reversed upon the law, with $30 costs to the landlord and final order directed for the landlord as prayed for in the petition.

Walsh, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Misc. 42, 129 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dudic-holding-corp-v-feinstein-nyappterm-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack