Loza v. Sottile

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loza v. Sottile

188 A.D.2d 641, 592 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14616

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 641 (Loza v. Sottile) 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

Loza v. Sottile, 188 A.D.2d 641, 592 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14616 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unlawful eviction, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated March 21, 1990, which sua sponte dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[642]*642The plaintiff contends that the dismissal of his cause of action to recover damages was improper, arguing solely that such a cause of action was authorized under section 2524.4 (a) (5) of the Rent Stabilization Code. The code, however, explicitly states that no such cause of action is authorized (see, 9 NYCRR 2524.4 [a] [5]). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unlawful eviction, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated March 21, 1990, which sua sponte dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[642]*642The plaintiff contends that the dismissal of his cause of action to recover damages was improper, arguing solely that such a cause of action was authorized under section 2524.4 (a) (5) of the Rent Stabilization Code. The code, however, explicitly states that no such cause of action is authorized (see, 9 NYCRR 2524.4 [a] [5]). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 641, 592 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loza-v-sottile-nyappdiv-1992.