Newman v. Sherbar Development Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Newman v. Sherbar Development Co.

47 A.D.2d 648, 364 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8831

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 47 A.D.2d 648 (Newman v. Sherbar Development Co.) 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

Newman v. Sherbar Development Co., 47 A.D.2d 648, 364 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, .(by tenants of,"an apartment building inter aUa for ¿ declaratory judgment that a certain declaration of'effectiveness-,^'a plan of-co-operative, organization /of the-tmilling is" void) and several stímmáity'-proceedings, to. recover • possession' óf-real, property* (the proceedings werp transferred from the Civil Gdurtiof "the City ’of New York to'the Supreme Court, ¡Kings Coimty;,there- to. be tried /vvjih' the action); plaintiffs in the action and ■ respondents"in the proceedings ' appeal from a judgment of the Supreme- Court,' Kin'gs; County,' dated -May/29, 1974, (which,, áftér a. non jury trial, inter alia- deelared/hat '.the co-operative plan was propa-ly',declared effective on. August- 8;-" 1973. tod"'-‘tiriff pétitiónerf ; 'in the proceedings is entitled tó warrants.of eviction" judgment ;mp<ti§ecj,son1 the facts and in the exercise o.f this court’s discretion .in.tite interest of justice, ■-by adding thereto a provision staying defendahts1 ffom'proíé'éditig against ¡ ¿it - . who are plaintiffs in-the1'action.to.recover possession of .their (respective apért'- .. ments priori to. Júly'l, 1979;/and .further staying', the issuance (®fitoritots, ¡ñ . the. summary proceedings, until said daté,, all. .provided /hat .saidV pIaintiffs' -yand the respondents in-thé summary. proceedings; resp/eétivbly' pay the préséht: -rent of their' apartments as such nents-become-due/ .(As.so inodified, judgment (affirmed) without costs.. .Under" section-753 o"f; the ReáDProperty ActiohS tod' Proceedings Law ¡¡a stay of the.issuance of . a -/arraiit in a holdd-ty/summary:1 proceéding-may be allowed for a penod not to.etyéed six months? In the gránting " . of'equitable relief, the court may mold its relief io accord'- with the v exigencies of the case (cf. Matter <?/,Galewitz, 3.A D gd 280,.285,. áffd. S^N Y 2d 72l-; Wages v. Wages, 38 A D 2d 968), In-the light-of the prevailing .tight market for apartment" rentals; .we 'find the exigencies ■ of this - case, equitably iequire the, conditional stay granted by the modification herein of the judgment, HopkinS, Acting. P.. J,, Martuseelló, Brennan, (Benjamin and Shapiro; ,JJ,, -concur/. ■'

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

— In an action, .(by tenants of,"an apartment building inter aUa for ¿ declaratory judgment that a certain declaration of'effectiveness-,^'a plan of-co-operative, organization /of the-tmilling is" void) and several stímmáity'-proceedings, to. recover • possession' óf-real, property* (the proceedings werp transferred from the Civil Gdurtiof "the City ’of New York to'the Supreme Court, ¡Kings Coimty;,there- to. be tried /vvjih' the action); plaintiffs in the action and ■ respondents"in the proceedings ' appeal from a judgment of the Supreme- Court,' Kin'gs; County,' dated -May/29, 1974, (which,, áftér a. non jury trial, inter alia- deelared/hat '.the co-operative plan was propa-ly',declared effective on. August- 8;-" 1973. tod"'-‘tiriff pétitiónerf ; 'in the proceedings is entitled tó warrants.of eviction" judgment ;mp<ti§ecj,son1 the facts and in the exercise o.f this court’s discretion .in.tite interest of justice, ■-by adding thereto a provision staying defendahts1 ffom'proíé'éditig against ¡ ¿it - . who are plaintiffs in-the1'action.to.recover possession of .their (respective apért'- .. ments priori to. Júly'l, 1979;/and .further staying', the issuance (®fitoritots, ¡ñ . the. summary proceedings, until said daté,, all. .provided /hat .saidV pIaintiffs' -yand the respondents in-thé summary. proceedings; resp/eétivbly' pay the préséht: -rent of their' apartments as such nents-become-due/ .(As.so inodified, judgment (affirmed) without costs.. .Under" section-753 o"f; the ReáDProperty ActiohS tod' Proceedings Law ¡¡a stay of the.issuance of . a -/arraiit in a holdd-ty/summary:1 proceéding-may be allowed for a penod not to.etyéed six months? In the gránting " . of'equitable relief, the court may mold its relief io accord'- with the v exigencies of the case (cf. Matter <?/,Galewitz, 3.A D gd 280,.285,. áffd. S^N Y 2d 72l-; Wages v. Wages, 38 A D 2d 968), In-the light-of the prevailing .tight market for apartment" rentals; .we 'find the exigencies ■ of this - case, equitably iequire the, conditional stay granted by the modification herein of the judgment, HopkinS, Acting. P.. J,, Martuseelló, Brennan, (Benjamin and Shapiro; ,JJ,, -concur/. ■'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 648, 364 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-sherbar-development-co-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack