Kling v. Perlp

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kling v. Perlp

173 Misc. 249, 17 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1422

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 12, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 173 Misc. 249 (Kling v. Perlp) 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

Kling v. Perlp, 173 Misc. 249, 17 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1422 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

That tenant “ entered into the occupation of said premises and still occupies the same in violation of section 1146 of the Penal Law ” is not a sufficient statement of facts in the petition for dispossession, especially when the police department notice, made a part of the petition, states, “ I am informed that you are the owner, agent or lessee of premises * * * wherein it is suspected that a disorderly house is being maintained.” (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1415; Keogh, Landlord and Tenant, Summary Proceedings, 207, 319, 320.) The petition being fatally defective, and its sufficiency challenged in the answer and at the trial, the final order cannot be sustained.

Final order reversed, with five dollars costs, and petition dismissed, without prejudice to new proceeding.

All concur. Present — McCook, Hammer and Shientag, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

That tenant “ entered into the occupation of said premises and still occupies the same in violation of section 1146 of the Penal Law ” is not a sufficient statement of facts in the petition for dispossession, especially when the police department notice, made a part of the petition, states, “ I am informed that you are the owner, agent or lessee of premises * * * wherein it is suspected that a disorderly house is being maintained.” (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1415; Keogh, Landlord and Tenant, Summary Proceedings, 207, 319, 320.) The petition being fatally defective, and its sufficiency challenged in the answer and at the trial, the final order cannot be sustained.

Final order reversed, with five dollars costs, and petition dismissed, without prejudice to new proceeding.

All concur. Present — McCook, Hammer and Shientag, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 Misc. 249, 17 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kling-v-perlp-nyappterm-1940.