Ostend Realty Corp. v. Lehman

City of New York Municipal Court

Ostend Realty Corp. v. Lehman

204 Misc. 234, 127 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2562

City of New York Municipal Court·Decided July 22, 1953·Published

Opinion

Hookebt, J.

Petition is dismissed as the landlord, a corporation, does not appear by an attorney as required by section 236 of the Civil Practice Act (Hillside Housing Corp. v. Eisenberger, 173 Misc. 75). The petition has no mention of an attorney. An attorney whose name appears on the precept without designating him as an attorney is insufficient to comply with the statute. There is no proof submitted by the landlord corporation that it has an attorney and/or commenced this proceeding by an attorney. (Gaston & Co. v. All Russian Zemsky Union, 221 App. Div. 732.) The question is properly raised by a special appearance of the tenant and the petition is hereby dismissed.

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

Hookebt, J.

Petition is dismissed as the landlord, a corporation, does not appear by an attorney as required by section 236 of the Civil Practice Act (Hillside Housing Corp. v. Eisenberger, 173 Misc. 75). The petition has no mention of an attorney. An attorney whose name appears on the precept without designating him as an attorney is insufficient to comply with the statute. There is no proof submitted by the landlord corporation that it has an attorney and/or commenced this proceeding by an attorney. (Gaston & Co. v. All Russian Zemsky Union, 221 App. Div. 732.) The question is properly raised by a special appearance of the tenant and the petition is hereby dismissed.

Ostend Realty Corp. v. Lehman, 204 Misc. 234, 127 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2562 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1953).

Pincite

204 Misc. 234 (Ostend Realty Corp. v. Lehman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related