Pelhut Realty Co. v. White

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Pelhut Realty Co. v. White

77 Misc. 2d 585, 356 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1226

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 14, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 Misc. 2d 585 (Pelhut Realty Co. v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pelhut Realty Co. v. White, 77 Misc. 2d 585, 356 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Final judgment unanimously reversed, with $10 costs to landlord to abide the event, motion to dismiss petition denied, and matter remanded to the court below for trial.

[586]*586The court was not divested of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the proceeding because the petition failed to allege compliance with the Economic Stabilization Regulations (Rosgro Realty Co. v. Braynen, 70 Misc 2d 808; 37 & 7 Realopp Corp. v. Seafood City, Inc., 71 Misc 2d 302). The pleading (as distinguished from proof) of compliance with the regulations is not a condition precedent to the maintenance of the proceeding, as is the case under certain New York City rent regulations that Require petitioner to both allege and prove the facts showing ¿compliance with the regulatory provisions (Giannini v. Stuart, 6 A D 2d 418; United Institutional Serv. Corp. v. Santiago, 62 Misc 2d 935). The cases construing the city rent regulations, therefore, are not controlling.

Concur — Hogan, P. J., McCullough and Farley, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Final judgment unanimously reversed, with $10 costs to landlord to abide the event, motion to dismiss petition denied, and matter remanded to the court below for trial.

[586]*586The court was not divested of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the proceeding because the petition failed to allege compliance with the Economic Stabilization Regulations (Rosgro Realty Co. v. Braynen, 70 Misc 2d 808; 37 & 7 Realopp Corp. v. Seafood City, Inc., 71 Misc 2d 302). The pleading (as distinguished from proof) of compliance with the regulations is not a condition precedent to the maintenance of the proceeding, as is the case under certain New York City rent regulations that Require petitioner to both allege and prove the facts showing ¿compliance with the regulatory provisions (Giannini v. Stuart, 6 A D 2d 418; United Institutional Serv. Corp. v. Santiago, 62 Misc 2d 935). The cases construing the city rent regulations, therefore, are not controlling.

Concur — Hogan, P. J., McCullough and Farley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 Misc. 2d 585, 356 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pelhut-realty-co-v-white-nyappterm-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack