Harkap Realty Corp. v. Poler

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Harkap Realty Corp. v. Poler

198 Misc. 473, 102 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1950 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2373

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 11, 1950

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 Misc. 473 (Harkap Realty Corp. v. Poler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harkap Realty Corp. v. Poler, 198 Misc. 473, 102 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1950 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant became a statutory tenant when he remained in possession of the apartment after the last lease expired (Stern v. Equitable Trust Co., 238 N. Y. 267; Whitmarsh v. Farnell, 298 N. Y. 336). His status as a statutory tenant rendered the automatic renewal clause inoperative (Park View Gardens v. Greene, 274 App. Div. 1062). The provision for a concession did not carry over into such tenancy (Miltonian Realty Corp. v. Markowitz, 184 Misc. 360; Macsher Realty Corp. v. Knobler, 184 Misc. 56). Additionally, the rent collectible on April 1,1950, as theretofore determined by the Federal Housing Expediter, was unaffected by the provisions of the so-called Sharkey Law (Local Laws, 1949, No. 73 of City of New York) or section 13-a of the State Residential Rent Control Law (L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd. by L. 1950, ch. 250) (Teeval Co., v. Stern, 301 N. Y. 346).

The order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and judgment entered thereon should be unanimously reversed upon the law, with $30 costs to plaintiff, and motion denied.

The order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law, without costs, and motion granted.

Steinbrink, Fennelly and Rubenstein, JJ., concur.

Orders and judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant became a statutory tenant when he remained in possession of the apartment after the last lease expired (Stern v. Equitable Trust Co., 238 N. Y. 267; Whitmarsh v. Farnell, 298 N. Y. 336). His status as a statutory tenant rendered the automatic renewal clause inoperative (Park View Gardens v. Greene, 274 App. Div. 1062). The provision for a concession did not carry over into such tenancy (Miltonian Realty Corp. v. Markowitz, 184 Misc. 360; Macsher Realty Corp. v. Knobler, 184 Misc. 56). Additionally, the rent collectible on April 1,1950, as theretofore determined by the Federal Housing Expediter, was unaffected by the provisions of the so-called Sharkey Law (Local Laws, 1949, No. 73 of City of New York) or section 13-a of the State Residential Rent Control Law (L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd. by L. 1950, ch. 250) (Teeval Co., v. Stern, 301 N. Y. 346).

The order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and judgment entered thereon should be unanimously reversed upon the law, with $30 costs to plaintiff, and motion denied.

The order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law, without costs, and motion granted.

Steinbrink, Fennelly and Rubenstein, JJ., concur.

Orders and judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 Misc. 473, 102 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1950 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harkap-realty-corp-v-poler-nyappterm-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack