Khedouri Ezair Corp. v. Kosatka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Khedouri Ezair Corp. v. Kosatka

188 A.D.2d 360

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 360 (Khedouri Ezair Corp. v. Kosatka) 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

Khedouri Ezair Corp. v. Kosatka, 188 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered August 2, 1991, which, inter alia, confirmed the report of the Special Referee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this ejectment action, defendant, who is indigent, argues that she had a right to assigned counsel. No right to counsel for indigent tenants facing eviction has, however, been established (see, Donaldson v State of New York, 156 AD2d 290, lv denied and dismissed 75 NY2d 1003). To the extent review is possible, the parties having waived transcription of the minutes of the hearing before the Special Referee (see, Suda v Suda, 178 AD2d 194), we find that defendant was given a full and fair opportunity to present her case, and that the findings made by the Special Referee are supported by the record. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered August 2, 1991, which, inter alia, confirmed the report of the Special Referee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this ejectment action, defendant, who is indigent, argues that she had a right to assigned counsel. No right to counsel for indigent tenants facing eviction has, however, been established (see, Donaldson v State of New York, 156 AD2d 290, lv denied and dismissed 75 NY2d 1003). To the extent review is possible, the parties having waived transcription of the minutes of the hearing before the Special Referee (see, Suda v Suda, 178 AD2d 194), we find that defendant was given a full and fair opportunity to present her case, and that the findings made by the Special Referee are supported by the record. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khedouri-ezair-corp-v-kosatka-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack