Jaylo Realty Corp. v. Bobnor Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jaylo Realty Corp. v. Bobnor Realty Corp.

275 A.D.2d 819

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

DecidedMay 24, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 819 (Jaylo Realty Corp. v. Bobnor Realty Corp.) 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

Jaylo Realty Corp. v. Bobnor Realty Corp., 275 A.D.2d 819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Dore, J., dissents as follows: Plaintiff’s contention is that plaintiff used and occupied the premises for business purposes during the period of alterations and that “ the alterations were in fact its business ”, On the admissions made by plaintiff in which no such state of facts was set forth or claimed the court properly dismissed pursuant to section 476 of the Civil Practice Act. It is clear that plaintiff’s possession was constructive only and the principle of WMCA, Inc., v. Blockfront Realty Corp. (272 App. Div. 800) is applicable. I dissent and vote to affirm. [See ante, p. 646; 276 App. Div. 893.]

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

Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Dore, J., dissents as follows: Plaintiff’s contention is that plaintiff used and occupied the premises for business purposes during the period of alterations and that “ the alterations were in fact its business ”, On the admissions made by plaintiff in which no such state of facts was set forth or claimed the court properly dismissed pursuant to section 476 of the Civil Practice Act. It is clear that plaintiff’s possession was constructive only and the principle of WMCA, Inc., v. Blockfront Realty Corp. (272 App. Div. 800) is applicable. I dissent and vote to affirm. [See ante, p. 646; 276 App. Div. 893.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaylo-realty-corp-v-bobnor-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1949.