Niman v. Niman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Niman v. Niman

269 A.D. 675, 53 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3212

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 269 A.D. 675 (Niman v. Niman) 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

Niman v. Niman, 269 A.D. 675, 53 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of an agreement to convey real property, after judgment a motion for an order in the nature of a writ of assistance to remove an [676]*676occupant and place the owner in possession was denied. Order dated November 27, 1944, modified on the law by striking from the first ordering paragraph the following words “ Myron Kommel hereby appeals ”, and substituting in place thereof the words “ plaintiff and Myron Kommel hereby appeal.” As thus modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order dated September 29, 1944, is dismissed, without costs. Resettled order dated October 30, 1944, affirmed, without costs. It appears without dispute that at the time of -entering into the lease agreement the respondent had knowledge that his lessor’s title was being attacked as subject to being defeated upon demand. The effect of the judgment in favor of plaintiff was to cut off any interest or estate of respondent in the realty. Under the provisions of section 985 of the Civil Practice Act the granting of a motion to give a party possession is discretionary. Under the facts in this case, and in view of the provisions of the Federal rent control regulations, the court is of the opinion that the denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for specific performance of an agreement to convey real property, after judgment a motion for an order in the nature of a writ of assistance to remove an [676]*676occupant and place the owner in possession was denied. Order dated November 27, 1944, modified on the law by striking from the first ordering paragraph the following words “ Myron Kommel hereby appeals ”, and substituting in place thereof the words “ plaintiff and Myron Kommel hereby appeal.” As thus modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order dated September 29, 1944, is dismissed, without costs. Resettled order dated October 30, 1944, affirmed, without costs. It appears without dispute that at the time of -entering into the lease agreement the respondent had knowledge that his lessor’s title was being attacked as subject to being defeated upon demand. The effect of the judgment in favor of plaintiff was to cut off any interest or estate of respondent in the realty. Under the provisions of section 985 of the Civil Practice Act the granting of a motion to give a party possession is discretionary. Under the facts in this case, and in view of the provisions of the Federal rent control regulations, the court is of the opinion that the denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D. 675, 53 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niman-v-niman-nyappdiv-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack