New York City Housing Authority v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York City Housing Authority v. Murphy

274 A.D.2d 397, 711 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7544

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 274 A.D.2d 397 (New York City Housing Authority v. Murphy) 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

New York City Housing Authority v. Murphy, 274 A.D.2d 397, 711 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a summary holdover proceeding to recover possession of an apartment, the tenant appeals, by permission and as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated February 11, 1999, as affirmed an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (Hoahng, J.), dated February 3, 1997, which, upon granting her motion, in effect, for reargument, adhered to the determination in a prior order of the same court dated December 23, 1996, denying her motion, inter alia, to vacate a stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Without reaching the issue of whether RPAPL 753 (4) applies to the instant proceeding, we find, that upon the record before us, the appellant failed to establish any ground for vacating the stipulation (see, Gaton v Gaton, 170 AD2d 576, 577; Golfinopoulos v Golfinopoulos, 144 AD2d 537, 538). Gold-stein, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In a summary holdover proceeding to recover possession of an apartment, the tenant appeals, by permission and as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated February 11, 1999, as affirmed an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (Hoahng, J.), dated February 3, 1997, which, upon granting her motion, in effect, for reargument, adhered to the determination in a prior order of the same court dated December 23, 1996, denying her motion, inter alia, to vacate a stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Without reaching the issue of whether RPAPL 753 (4) applies to the instant proceeding, we find, that upon the record before us, the appellant failed to establish any ground for vacating the stipulation (see, Gaton v Gaton, 170 AD2d 576, 577; Golfinopoulos v Golfinopoulos, 144 AD2d 537, 538). Gold-stein, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D.2d 397, 711 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-city-housing-authority-v-murphy-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack