Mulleb v. Holtzer
This text of 17 Misc. 2d 862 (Mulleb v. Holtzer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Testimony of hardship that might be suffered by the tenants-respondents was clearly inadmissible and prejudicial to the landlords-appellants. The landlords comply with [863]*863the statute’s demands if they bring the eviction proceeding with the honest intention and desire to obtain possession of the business space for their own immediate and personal use (Matter of Rosenbluth v. Finkelstein, 300 N. Y. 402; Kauffman & Sons Saddlery Co. v. Miller, 298 N. Y. 38; N. R. M. Garage Corp. v. Feig Garage Corp., 10 Misc 2d 216, affd. 279 App. Div. 126, affd. 303 N. Y. 922).
The final order should be reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellants to abide the event.
Concur — Hofstajdter, J. P., Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.
Final order reversed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 Misc. 2d 862, 186 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulleb-v-holtzer-nyappterm-1959.