H. A. E. F. F. Realty Corp. v. J. P. G. Restaurant Corp.

50 Misc. 2d 266, 270 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1298
CourtNassau County District Court
DecidedDecember 3, 1965
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 Misc. 2d 266 (H. A. E. F. F. Realty Corp. v. J. P. G. Restaurant Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nassau County District Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
H. A. E. F. F. Realty Corp. v. J. P. G. Restaurant Corp., 50 Misc. 2d 266, 270 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1298 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1965).

Opinion

Bebbabd Tomsoet, J.

The landlord seeks an order for the issuance of a warrant of eviction. The tenant seeks an order to stay the issuance of the warrant. A hearing to determine the validity of the stipulation dated May 12, 1965 resulted in a finding that the stipulation was validly entered into and would not be set aside.1

[267]*267There remains the question as to whether the provisions of section 751 of the Beal Property Actions and Proceedings Law, properly complied with, would effect a stay in view of paragraph 3 of the stipulation dated May 12. In order to reach such a determination, it would be necessary to determine that the provisions of section 751 would supersede the explicit provisions of the parties’ agreement. Apropos is the holding of the Court of Appeals in Matter of Malloy (278 N. Y. 429, 433) where the court stated: “ ‘ Parties by their stipulations may in many ways make the law for any legal proceeding to which they are parties, which not only binds them, but which the courts are bound to enforce. They may stipulate away statutory, and even constitutional rights.’ ”

There is no provision in the section that would make a waiver of the provisions of section 751 void or against public policy. (Cf. subd. 4, par. [d] as it read prior to Sept. 1, 1964.)

Accordingly, the court is constrained to hold that, since the tenant, on or before the return day of the application for the warrant, failed to pay “ the full arrears,” the application for the warrant must be granted and the motion for a stay must be denied.

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

Related

950 Third Ave Co. v. Eastland Industries, Inc.
119 Misc. 2d 19 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 Misc. 2d 266, 270 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-a-e-f-f-realty-corp-v-j-p-g-restaurant-corp-nydistctnassau-1965.