Payson v. Caputa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Payson v. Caputa

11 A.D.2d 1008, 205 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7719

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 1008 (Payson v. Caputa) 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

Payson v. Caputa, 11 A.D.2d 1008, 205 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered January 19, 1960, dismissing landlord’s petition in an article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. The court has carefully examined the minutes in the two hearings before the State Rent Administrator and finds that the hearing examiner in neither instance was guilty of any unfairness or inadequacy in the conduct of the proceeding. Indeed, any difficulties during the proceedings were caused by undue bickering between the lawyers for the landlord and the tenant. In consequence, the hearing examiner, particularly in the second and later proceedings, conducted not only a very fair hearing, but, considering the circumstances, exhibited a great deal of patience. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order, entered January 19, 1960, dismissing landlord’s petition in an article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. The court has carefully examined the minutes in the two hearings before the State Rent Administrator and finds that the hearing examiner in neither instance was guilty of any unfairness or inadequacy in the conduct of the proceeding. Indeed, any difficulties during the proceedings were caused by undue bickering between the lawyers for the landlord and the tenant. In consequence, the hearing examiner, particularly in the second and later proceedings, conducted not only a very fair hearing, but, considering the circumstances, exhibited a great deal of patience. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 1008, 205 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payson-v-caputa-nyappdiv-1960.