McKee v. Wellington Estates, Ltd.

New York Court of Appeals

McKee v. Wellington Estates, Ltd.

458 N.E.2d 380, 60 N.Y.2d 853, 470 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3519

DecidedNovember 3, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 458 N.E.2d 380 (McKee v. Wellington Estates, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McKee v. Wellington Estates, Ltd., 458 N.E.2d 380, 60 N.Y.2d 853, 470 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3519 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The language of the General Obligations Law (§ 7-103, subd 2) provides two alternatives for the disposition of accrued interest, less administration expenses, by a landlord: to hold the interest in trust or to make annual payments to the tenant. Neither the statutory language nor the legislative history mandates that a landlord apply the accrued interest to a subsequent increase in the security deposit. Nor did the Appellate Division abuse its discretion in awarding costs and disbursements to defendants.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The language of the General Obligations Law (§ 7-103, subd 2) provides two alternatives for the disposition of accrued interest, less administration expenses, by a landlord: to hold the interest in trust or to make annual payments to the tenant. Neither the statutory language nor the legislative history mandates that a landlord apply the accrued interest to a subsequent increase in the security deposit. Nor did the Appellate Division abuse its discretion in awarding costs and disbursements to defendants.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 N.E.2d 380, 60 N.Y.2d 853, 470 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckee-v-wellington-estates-ltd-ny-1983.