Krizar v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krizar v. Abrams

1 A.D.2d 942, 150 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5748

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

DecidedApril 17, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 942 (Krizar v. Abrams) 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

Krizar v. Abrams, 1 A.D.2d 942, 150 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

It cannot be said on this record that the finding of the Rent Administrator was purely arbitrary for there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the landlord was not acting in good faith. The landlord’s attempt to evict the tenant and at the same time retain his own apartment in the premises for occasional use indicates that he was not motivated by any immediate or compelling necessity, but sought the eviction merely as a matter of convenience. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the determination of the Rent Administrator reinstated, and a final order is directed to be entered dismissing the proceeding, on the merits, with costs. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Botein, Rabin and Cox, JJ.

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

It cannot be said on this record that the finding of the Rent Administrator was purely arbitrary for there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the landlord was not acting in good faith. The landlord’s attempt to evict the tenant and at the same time retain his own apartment in the premises for occasional use indicates that he was not motivated by any immediate or compelling necessity, but sought the eviction merely as a matter of convenience. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the determination of the Rent Administrator reinstated, and a final order is directed to be entered dismissing the proceeding, on the merits, with costs. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Botein, Rabin and Cox, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 942, 150 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krizar-v-abrams-nyappdiv-1956.