Edelman v. McGoldrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edelman v. McGoldrick

281 A.D. 686, 117 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3251

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 686 (Edelman v. McGoldrick) 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

Edelman v. McGoldrick, 281 A.D. 686, 117 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3251 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Rent Administrator denying petitioner’s application for a certificate of eviction. The Administrator appeals from an order annulling his determination and directing the issuance of a certificate. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. There is nothing in this record to indicate that the petitioner did not in good faith buy the house to obtain possession of the second floor apartment for her own use, or that an unlawful or immoral motive induced her to improve the first floor apartment to increase her income. (Cf. Matter of líosenbluth v. Firikelstein, 300 N. Y. 402.) Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, MacCrate and Schmidt, JJ.

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

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Rent Administrator denying petitioner’s application for a certificate of eviction. The Administrator appeals from an order annulling his determination and directing the issuance of a certificate. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. There is nothing in this record to indicate that the petitioner did not in good faith buy the house to obtain possession of the second floor apartment for her own use, or that an unlawful or immoral motive induced her to improve the first floor apartment to increase her income. (Cf. Matter of líosenbluth v. Firikelstein, 300 N. Y. 402.) Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, MacCrate and Schmidt, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 686, 117 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edelman-v-mcgoldrick-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack