Good-Wine Realty Corp. v. Sperling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Good-Wine Realty Corp. v. Sperling

3 A.D.2d 761, 161 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6131

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 761 (Good-Wine Realty Corp. v. Sperling) 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

Good-Wine Realty Corp. v. Sperling, 3 A.D.2d 761, 161 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In a summary proceeding to recover, for nonpayment of rent, possession of real property alleged to have been hired for business purposes, the landlord, pursuant to leave granted by this court, appeals from an order of the Appellate Term affirming a final order of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, adjudging that the apartment was used for residential and not business purposes and that the landlord was entitled to the maximum residential rent therefor. Order affirmed, without costs. Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Wenzel, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the order of the Appellate Term and the order of the Municipal Court and to dismiss the proceeding, with the following memorandum: The landlord and the tenants have been litigating over this tenancy for years. In 1951, in a proceeding in the Supreme Court, the attorneys for both sides entered into a stipulation which should have resolved their differences. It should not have been ignored or in effect vacated in the Municipal Court.

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

In a summary proceeding to recover, for nonpayment of rent, possession of real property alleged to have been hired for business purposes, the landlord, pursuant to leave granted by this court, appeals from an order of the Appellate Term affirming a final order of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, adjudging that the apartment was used for residential and not business purposes and that the landlord was entitled to the maximum residential rent therefor. Order affirmed, without costs. Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Wenzel, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the order of the Appellate Term and the order of the Municipal Court and to dismiss the proceeding, with the following memorandum: The landlord and the tenants have been litigating over this tenancy for years. In 1951, in a proceeding in the Supreme Court, the attorneys for both sides entered into a stipulation which should have resolved their differences. It should not have been ignored or in effect vacated in the Municipal Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 761, 161 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/good-wine-realty-corp-v-sperling-nyappdiv-1957.