Hotel Martha Washington Management Co. v. Swinick

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hotel Martha Washington Management Co. v. Swinick

65 Misc. 2d 1040, 319 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1878

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 3, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 65 Misc. 2d 1040 (Hotel Martha Washington Management Co. v. Swinick) 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

Hotel Martha Washington Management Co. v. Swinick, 65 Misc. 2d 1040, 319 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Despite the allegations in both petitions to the contrary, the building of which the demised premises are a part appears to be a multiple dwelling (Multiple Dwelling Law, § 4, subds. 7, 9; Administrative Code of City of New York, § D26-1.07, subds. 8, 9 not exempt from the registration provisions of subdivision 2 of section 325 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, and section D26-41.21 of the Administrative Code). Failure to allege registration of the hotel in compliance with these provisions is a jurisdictional defect (Cal Cal Realty Corp. v. Taylor, N. Y. L. J., June 26, 1970, p. 2, col. 2). This requires dismissal of the petitions. However, the record indicates the probability of proper registration. Consequently, the dismissal shall be without prejudice to the institution of a new proceeding by petition including the necessary allegations.

[1042]*1042Similarly, while we permit the dismissal of the counterclaims to stand, such dismissal shall be without prejudice and the counterclaims may be reasserted in any new litigation.

The final judgments should he reversed, without costs, and petitions and counterclaims dismissed, without prejudice. Appeals from orders dismissed as moot.

Concur — Quinn, J. P., Gold and Markowitz, JJ.

Final judgments reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Despite the allegations in both petitions to the contrary, the building of which the demised premises are a part appears to be a multiple dwelling (Multiple Dwelling Law, § 4, subds. 7, 9; Administrative Code of City of New York, § D26-1.07, subds. 8, 9 not exempt from the registration provisions of subdivision 2 of section 325 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, and section D26-41.21 of the Administrative Code). Failure to allege registration of the hotel in compliance with these provisions is a jurisdictional defect (Cal Cal Realty Corp. v. Taylor, N. Y. L. J., June 26, 1970, p. 2, col. 2). This requires dismissal of the petitions. However, the record indicates the probability of proper registration. Consequently, the dismissal shall be without prejudice to the institution of a new proceeding by petition including the necessary allegations.

[1042]*1042Similarly, while we permit the dismissal of the counterclaims to stand, such dismissal shall be without prejudice and the counterclaims may be reasserted in any new litigation.

The final judgments should he reversed, without costs, and petitions and counterclaims dismissed, without prejudice. Appeals from orders dismissed as moot.

Concur — Quinn, J. P., Gold and Markowitz, JJ.

Final judgments reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 Misc. 2d 1040, 319 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hotel-martha-washington-management-co-v-swinick-nyappterm-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack