Linden Hill No. 2 Cooperative v. Leskowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Linden Hill No. 2 Cooperative v. Leskowitz

41 A.D.2d 741, 341 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4977

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 741 (Linden Hill No. 2 Cooperative v. Leskowitz) 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

Linden Hill No. 2 Cooperative v. Leskowitz, 41 A.D.2d 741, 341 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alla for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, with respect to defendants’ harboring of a dog in their apartment, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 25, 1972, which denied its motion for summary judgment, granted defendants summary judgment and adjudged that plaintiff is not entitled to removal of the dog. Order reversed, on the law, without costs; plaintiff’s motion granted and defendants’ application denied. The action is remitted to the Special Term for the entry of an appropriate judgment. In our opinion, the provision in the occupancy agreement barring the harboring of animals is valid and there was no waiver of the provision or oral modification thereof. (See, e.g., Hillman Housing Corp. v. Krupnik, 40 A D 2d 788; Hilltop Vil. Coop. No. 4 v. Goldstein. 43 Misc 2d 657, affd. 23 A D 2d 722; Lincoln Coop. Apts. v. Zaifert, 23 A D 2d 796.) Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham* Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alla for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, with respect to defendants’ harboring of a dog in their apartment, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 25, 1972, which denied its motion for summary judgment, granted defendants summary judgment and adjudged that plaintiff is not entitled to removal of the dog. Order reversed, on the law, without costs; plaintiff’s motion granted and defendants’ application denied. The action is remitted to the Special Term for the entry of an appropriate judgment. In our opinion, the provision in the occupancy agreement barring the harboring of animals is valid and there was no waiver of the provision or oral modification thereof. (See, e.g., Hillman Housing Corp. v. Krupnik, 40 A D 2d 788; Hilltop Vil. Coop. No. 4 v. Goldstein. 43 Misc 2d 657, affd. 23 A D 2d 722; Lincoln Coop. Apts. v. Zaifert, 23 A D 2d 796.) Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham* Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 741, 341 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linden-hill-no-2-cooperative-v-leskowitz-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack