Frall Realty Corp. v. Kulpa

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Frall Realty Corp. v. Kulpa

50 Misc. 2d 750, 271 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1862

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 19, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 50 Misc. 2d 750 (Frall Realty Corp. v. Kulpa) 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

Frall Realty Corp. v. Kulpa, 50 Misc. 2d 750, 271 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The mere refusal to install a new lock, after a burglary, followed immediately by oral notification, by a tenant (defendant), that she intended to vacate her apartment at the end of the month, does not constitute a constructive eviction. The plaintiff landlord, therefore, is entitled to recover the rent due ($110.88) for October, 1963, as well as the rent for September, 1963, awarded to it by the lower court.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting plaintiff to amend its complaint to include a claim for an attorney’s fee based upon the provisions of the lease between the [751]*751parties. The award of $200 for such fee is justified by the record.

The judgment should be modified by increasing the recovery thereof by the sum of $110.88 and, as modified, affirmed, with $25 costs to plaintiif-respondent-appellant.

Concur — Gold, J. P., Capozzoli and Hecht, JJ.

Judgment modified, etc.

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