Knapp v. Altman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knapp v. Altman

36 A.D.2d 711, 319 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4424

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A.D.2d 711 (Knapp v. Altman) 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

Knapp v. Altman, 36 A.D.2d 711, 319 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

[712]*712Concur — MeGivem, J. P., Markewich and Kupferman, JJ.; Nunez and Tilzer, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum by Nunez, J.: I dissent and vote to affirm on the opinion at Special Term. Justice and fairness support Judge Dollijstger's order. The Administrator should make inquiry as to predominant use, inclusive of facts relating to whether the original leasing was intended in good faith to be for professional use, and whether, upon the subsequent renewals, the landlord was aware of and acquiesced in any use of the premises for predominantly residential use before in effect permitting the landlord to increase the rent of this apartment from approximately the sum of $3,000 under rent control to the sum of $15,000 now demanded from the tenant.

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

[712]*712Concur — MeGivem, J. P., Markewich and Kupferman, JJ.; Nunez and Tilzer, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum by Nunez, J.: I dissent and vote to affirm on the opinion at Special Term. Justice and fairness support Judge Dollijstger's order. The Administrator should make inquiry as to predominant use, inclusive of facts relating to whether the original leasing was intended in good faith to be for professional use, and whether, upon the subsequent renewals, the landlord was aware of and acquiesced in any use of the premises for predominantly residential use before in effect permitting the landlord to increase the rent of this apartment from approximately the sum of $3,000 under rent control to the sum of $15,000 now demanded from the tenant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.2d 711, 319 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knapp-v-altman-nyappdiv-1971.