Giardina v. Barclay Arms Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giardina v. Barclay Arms Associates

228 A.D.2d 678, 644 N.Y.2d 991, 644 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7411

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

DecidedJune 24, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D.2d 678 (Giardina v. Barclay Arms Associates) 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

Giardina v. Barclay Arms Associates, 228 A.D.2d 678, 644 N.Y.2d 991, 644 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner seeks to recover possession of an apartment which had been leased by her late husband Frank Giardina. The petitioner had been estranged from her husband at the time of his death. Indeed, it is uncontroverted that the petitioner had vacated the premises over one year prior to Frank’s, death and that she had neither returned to the premises nor spoken to Frank again. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not a person who may maintain this proceeding pursuant to RPAPL article 7 (see, RPAPL 711, 713, 721; see also, 9 NYCRR 2204.6, 2520.6; Koppel v Evelyn, 208 Misc 667; Bowman Realty Corp. v Trice, 205 Misc 588). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ. concur.

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

The petitioner seeks to recover possession of an apartment which had been leased by her late husband Frank Giardina. The petitioner had been estranged from her husband at the time of his death. Indeed, it is uncontroverted that the petitioner had vacated the premises over one year prior to Frank’s, death and that she had neither returned to the premises nor spoken to Frank again. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not a person who may maintain this proceeding pursuant to RPAPL article 7 (see, RPAPL 711, 713, 721; see also, 9 NYCRR 2204.6, 2520.6; Koppel v Evelyn, 208 Misc 667; Bowman Realty Corp. v Trice, 205 Misc 588). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 678, 644 N.Y.2d 991, 644 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giardina-v-barclay-arms-associates-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack