Gordon v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gordon v. Goldstein

94 A.D.2d 646, 462 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18055

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

DecidedMay 12, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 94 A.D.2d 646 (Gordon v. Goldstein) 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

Gordon v. Goldstein, 94 A.D.2d 646, 462 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Greenfield, J.), entered July 27,1982 granting reargument and adhering to original determination granting defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment, is reversed, on the law, and defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment is denied, without costs. A critical factor in determining both procedural and substantive rights of the parties is a determination whether the premises here involved constitute an “interim multiple dwelling” within the meaning of section 281 of article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law. On the present record, completed before the effective date of the statute, we are unable to determine this issue as a matter of law, and accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Silverman, Lynch and Milonas, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Greenfield, J.), entered July 27,1982 granting reargument and adhering to original determination granting defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment, is reversed, on the law, and defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment is denied, without costs. A critical factor in determining both procedural and substantive rights of the parties is a determination whether the premises here involved constitute an “interim multiple dwelling” within the meaning of section 281 of article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law. On the present record, completed before the effective date of the statute, we are unable to determine this issue as a matter of law, and accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Silverman, Lynch and Milonas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.2d 646, 462 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-1983.