Hersil Realty Mgt. Co. v. Hansen

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hersil Realty Mgt. Co. v. Hansen

1 Misc. 2d 65, 146 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3907

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 3, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 Misc. 2d 65 (Hersil Realty Mgt. Co. v. Hansen) 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

Hersil Realty Mgt. Co. v. Hansen, 1 Misc. 2d 65, 146 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This proceeding to evict the tenant as a holdover upon the ground that she was violating a substantial obligation of the lease because the apartment in question was occupied by her common-law husband and a young child born of their relationship was instituted after the Rent Commission had reduced the rent reserved in the lease from $60 to $32.20, the maximum fixed basic rental. The lease restricted the occu[66]*66pancy to the tenant and an adult son. The fact that the common-law husband and the other child also lived there does not constitute a substantial violation of the restrictive clause. There was no proof of any subletting to any outside boarders or lodgers.

The final order should be reversed, with $30 costs, and petition dismissed, with costs.

Eder, Schreiber and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

This proceeding to evict the tenant as a holdover upon the ground that she was violating a substantial obligation of the lease because the apartment in question was occupied by her common-law husband and a young child born of their relationship was instituted after the Rent Commission had reduced the rent reserved in the lease from $60 to $32.20, the maximum fixed basic rental. The lease restricted the occu[66]*66pancy to the tenant and an adult son. The fact that the common-law husband and the other child also lived there does not constitute a substantial violation of the restrictive clause. There was no proof of any subletting to any outside boarders or lodgers.

The final order should be reversed, with $30 costs, and petition dismissed, with costs.

Eder, Schreiber and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Misc. 2d 65, 146 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hersil-realty-mgt-co-v-hansen-nyappterm-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack