Mainstay Cooperative Section Two, Inc. v. Hroch

105 A.D.2d 695, 481 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20802
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 5, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 695 (Mainstay Cooperative Section Two, Inc. v. Hroch) 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
Mainstay Cooperative Section Two, Inc. v. Hroch, 105 A.D.2d 695, 481 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

In a holdover proceeding, petitioner appeals (by permission) from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated June 24,1983, which reversed a judgment of the Civil Court, Queens County (Harbater, J.), entered October 14, 1982, which had granted the petition, and, instead, dismissed the petition.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The occupancy agreement, executed in June, 1961, between petitioner, a federally insured cooperative housing corporation, and its “Member[s]”, respondents George Hroch and Carolyn Hroch, relating to their residence in a specified apartment, limited occupancy to the “Member * * * and his immediate family”. In 1975, their son, respondent Russell Hroch, upon his marriage, moved from the apartment, but returned in January, 1980, some years after his marriage was terminated, and remained there when his parents and his sister moved to Florida in July, 1980. In September, 1981, he married, and his new wife, respondent Donna Hroch, moved into the apartment with him.

Under the circumstances, the residence by Donna Hroch in the apartment in which her husband unquestionably had the right of possession did not constitute a violation of a substantial obligation of the occupancy agreement (see Real Property Law, § 235-f; 61 Jane St. Assoc. v Kroll, 102 AD2d 751; cf. McCorkle Co-op. Apts. v Gross, 54 AD2d 753, affd 43 NY2d 765). Niehoff, J. P., Boyers, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Northridge Coop. Section III, Inc. v. Bonilla
2025 NY Slip Op 06062 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
50 Brompton Owners, Inc. v. Freeman
2025 NY Slip Op 50481(U) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Northridge Coop. Section III, Inc. v. Bonilla
72 Misc. 3d 132(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Greene Avenue Associates v. Cardwell
191 Misc. 2d 775 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2002)
Sherwood Village Cooperative A, Inc. v. Slovik
134 Misc. 2d 922 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1986)
Hamilton Cooperative Apartments, Inc. v. Siegel
113 A.D.2d 738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 A.D.2d 695, 481 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mainstay-cooperative-section-two-inc-v-hroch-nyappdiv-1984.