Levy v. McGoldrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levy v. McGoldrick

279 A.D. 940, 111 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5378

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 279 A.D. 940 (Levy v. McGoldrick) 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

Levy v. McGoldrick, 279 A.D. 940, 111 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of December 7, 1951, reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and petition dismissed, without costs. The petitioner converted the subject building into a multiple dwelling by adding a third apartment. The fact that she did so without compliance with pertinent statutory provisions and thereby rendered herself subject to prosecution, and the fact that the New York City Department of Housing and Buildings had given her notice of the violation and had ordered her to restore the premises to its lawful occupancy, do not mean that the building has remained a two-family house, despite the physical conversion. [941]*941Accordingly, petitioner was not entitled to a certificate in the absence of establishing an immediate and compelling necessity. (State Residential Rent Law, § 5, subd. 2, par. [a], as amd. by L. 1951, eh. 443.) The determination by the Administrator that the petitioner had not established such necessity has support in the record and the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Administrator. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1023.]

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

Order of December 7, 1951, reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and petition dismissed, without costs. The petitioner converted the subject building into a multiple dwelling by adding a third apartment. The fact that she did so without compliance with pertinent statutory provisions and thereby rendered herself subject to prosecution, and the fact that the New York City Department of Housing and Buildings had given her notice of the violation and had ordered her to restore the premises to its lawful occupancy, do not mean that the building has remained a two-family house, despite the physical conversion. [941]*941Accordingly, petitioner was not entitled to a certificate in the absence of establishing an immediate and compelling necessity. (State Residential Rent Law, § 5, subd. 2, par. [a], as amd. by L. 1951, eh. 443.) The determination by the Administrator that the petitioner had not established such necessity has support in the record and the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Administrator. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1023.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D. 940, 111 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levy-v-mcgoldrick-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack