Golenpaul v. Frankel
This text of 285 A.D. 941 (Golenpaul v. Frankel) 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.
Opinion
Judgment dismissing the complaint after trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs. On this record plaintiffs do not establish any right to relief under the previous holdings in this court (Judson v. Franhel, 279 App. Div. 372; Gilligan v. Tishman Realty & Constr. Co., 283 App. Div. 157, affd. 306 N. Y. 974; People ex rel. McGoldrick v. Sterling, 283 App. Div. 88). Nor is any additional ground for relief suggested in the absence of a showing that the sale price to Frankel and-his associates was collusive or contrived. Nor do we find any basis for relief under the regulations of the State Rent Commission as now constituted or as now administered. In so holding we do not purport to limit the State Rent Administrator, at least with respect to matters that may arise in the future, in any action that he may be advised to take for the purpose of clarifying or limiting the terms “ cooperative corporation or association ” as they are presently found in the regulations. (State Rent and Eviction Regulations, § 55, subd.'3.) Present — Cohn, J. P., Callahan, Breitel, Bastow and Botein, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
285 A.D. 941, 138 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golenpaul-v-frankel-nyappdiv-1955.