Goldberg v. New York City Conciliation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldberg v. New York City Conciliation

128 A.D.2d 671, 513 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44363

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.2d 671 (Goldberg v. New York City Conciliation) 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

Goldberg v. New York City Conciliation, 128 A.D.2d 671, 513 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an [672]*672action for a declaratory judgment based upon a claim of a fraudulent conveyance of property, the plaintiffs Stanley Goldberg, Paul Mendel, Fred Kirby and George Symbouras appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated April 19, 1984, as conditioned the consolidation of a dispossess proceeding pending in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, with the instant action, upon the payment by the plaintiffs of current rent and arrearages to the respective defendants, who are record owners of the plaintiffs’ garden apartment complex units.

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiffs Paul Mendel and Fred Kirby is withdrawn, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that upon the appeal by the plaintiffs Stanley Goldberg and George Symbouras, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term did not abuse its discretion in imposing as a condition of consolidation that the appellants pay the current rent and arrearages to the defendants who are record owners of the appellants’ units in a garden apartment complex.

This protracted dispute primarily concerns the appellants’ efforts to protect their possessory rights in their residences. The fact that they have raised issues concerning the legal ownership of the property and whether there was a fraudulent conveyance subsequent to an order of the New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board terminating a prior owner’s membership in the Rent Stabilization Association does not relieve them of their obligation to pay rent.

Since it appears that the appellants Goldberg and Symbouras have not paid any rent to the current record owners of their units and their claims will not be prejudiced by Special Term’s condition, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by them. Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In an [672]*672action for a declaratory judgment based upon a claim of a fraudulent conveyance of property, the plaintiffs Stanley Goldberg, Paul Mendel, Fred Kirby and George Symbouras appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated April 19, 1984, as conditioned the consolidation of a dispossess proceeding pending in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, with the instant action, upon the payment by the plaintiffs of current rent and arrearages to the respective defendants, who are record owners of the plaintiffs’ garden apartment complex units.

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiffs Paul Mendel and Fred Kirby is withdrawn, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that upon the appeal by the plaintiffs Stanley Goldberg and George Symbouras, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term did not abuse its discretion in imposing as a condition of consolidation that the appellants pay the current rent and arrearages to the defendants who are record owners of the appellants’ units in a garden apartment complex.

This protracted dispute primarily concerns the appellants’ efforts to protect their possessory rights in their residences. The fact that they have raised issues concerning the legal ownership of the property and whether there was a fraudulent conveyance subsequent to an order of the New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board terminating a prior owner’s membership in the Rent Stabilization Association does not relieve them of their obligation to pay rent.

Since it appears that the appellants Goldberg and Symbouras have not paid any rent to the current record owners of their units and their claims will not be prejudiced by Special Term’s condition, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by them. Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 671, 513 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-new-york-city-conciliation-nyappdiv-1987.