Lincoln Cooperative Apartments, Inc. v. Zaifert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lincoln Cooperative Apartments, Inc. v. Zaifert

23 A.D.2d 796, 258 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4376

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

DecidedApril 26, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 796 (Lincoln Cooperative Apartments, Inc. v. Zaifert) 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

Lincoln Cooperative Apartments, Inc. v. Zaifert, 23 A.D.2d 796, 258 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to declare the rights of the parties, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment (misdescribed as an order) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 9, 1964 after a nonjury trial, upon the court’s opinion-decision, which dismissed the complaint on the merits. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs; judgment directed in favor of the plaintiff, without costs; and action remitted to the Special Term for the entry of an appropriate judgment declaring the rights of the parties in accordance herewith. No questions of fact have been considered. Plaintiff is a co-operative nonprofit corporation which operates and maintains an apartment house. Defendant is a stockholder of the plaintiff corporation and occupies one of the apartments in the house pursuant to a certain occupancy agreement. Defendant harbors a dog in her apartment despite a regulation promulgated by plaintiff forbidding dogs. In our opinion, the keeping of a dog by the defendant, who is an occupant-stockholder of the plaintiff corporation, in violation of the corporation’s lawfully adopted regulation, constitutes a substantial breach [797]*797of the defendant’s occupancy agreement (Hilltop Vil. Cooperative No. 4 V. Goldstein, 23 A D 2d 722; cf. Knolls Coop. Section No. 11 v. Gashman, 19 A D 2d 789, affd. 14 N Y 2d 579). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to declare the rights of the parties, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment (misdescribed as an order) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 9, 1964 after a nonjury trial, upon the court’s opinion-decision, which dismissed the complaint on the merits. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs; judgment directed in favor of the plaintiff, without costs; and action remitted to the Special Term for the entry of an appropriate judgment declaring the rights of the parties in accordance herewith. No questions of fact have been considered. Plaintiff is a co-operative nonprofit corporation which operates and maintains an apartment house. Defendant is a stockholder of the plaintiff corporation and occupies one of the apartments in the house pursuant to a certain occupancy agreement. Defendant harbors a dog in her apartment despite a regulation promulgated by plaintiff forbidding dogs. In our opinion, the keeping of a dog by the defendant, who is an occupant-stockholder of the plaintiff corporation, in violation of the corporation’s lawfully adopted regulation, constitutes a substantial breach [797]*797of the defendant’s occupancy agreement (Hilltop Vil. Cooperative No. 4 V. Goldstein, 23 A D 2d 722; cf. Knolls Coop. Section No. 11 v. Gashman, 19 A D 2d 789, affd. 14 N Y 2d 579). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 796, 258 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lincoln-cooperative-apartments-inc-v-zaifert-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack