Dyker Builders Corp. v. Markogiannis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dyker Builders Corp. v. Markogiannis

274 A.D.2d 373, 711 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7533

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 274 A.D.2d 373 (Dyker Builders Corp. v. Markogiannis) 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

Dyker Builders Corp. v. Markogiannis, 274 A.D.2d 373, 711 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a leasehold, the defendant Meropi Tribunella appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (I. Aronin, J.), entered June 26, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion to direct her to pay the plaintiff $350 per month for her use and occupancy of real property owned by the plaintiff.

[374]*374Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly required the appellant to pay for her use and occupancy of real property owned by the plaintiff (see, Real Property Law § 220; cf., Trump CPS v Meyer, 249 AD2d 22; Tobias Corp. v Jones, 236 AD2d 602; F.N.S. Atl. Co. v City of New York, 201 AD2d 366).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a leasehold, the defendant Meropi Tribunella appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (I. Aronin, J.), entered June 26, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion to direct her to pay the plaintiff $350 per month for her use and occupancy of real property owned by the plaintiff.

[374]*374Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly required the appellant to pay for her use and occupancy of real property owned by the plaintiff (see, Real Property Law § 220; cf., Trump CPS v Meyer, 249 AD2d 22; Tobias Corp. v Jones, 236 AD2d 602; F.N.S. Atl. Co. v City of New York, 201 AD2d 366).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D.2d 373, 711 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dyker-builders-corp-v-markogiannis-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack