Penfield v. Murray Hill Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Penfield v. Murray Hill Holding Corp.

281 A.D. 675, 117 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3202

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 675 (Penfield v. Murray Hill Holding Corp.) 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

Penfield v. Murray Hill Holding Corp., 281 A.D. 675, 117 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant, the complaint dismissed and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of the defendant, with costs. Where, as here, the plaintiffs’ leases have expired, they hold over as statutory tenants in occupancy not pursuant to any agreement, but solely by virtue of the law’s compulsion on the landlord (Whitmarsh v. Parnell, 298 N. Y. 336; Stern v. Equitable Trust Co., 238 N. Y. 267). A plenary suit for enforcement of alleged contractual rights obviously cannot be maintained in the absence of contract. As statutory tenants, the plaintiffs’ rights are defined and regulated by the statute, which provides adequate procedures for redress of grievances by way of statutory remedies. Their failure to exhaust such remedies before the State Rent Administrator destroys their standing in equity. The right to equitable relief depends on the absence ot‘ adequate remedies under the law. (See Brownrigg v. Berk Estates, 276 App. Div. 566.) Present — Peek, P. J., Callahan, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant, the complaint dismissed and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of the defendant, with costs. Where, as here, the plaintiffs’ leases have expired, they hold over as statutory tenants in occupancy not pursuant to any agreement, but solely by virtue of the law’s compulsion on the landlord (Whitmarsh v. Parnell, 298 N. Y. 336; Stern v. Equitable Trust Co., 238 N. Y. 267). A plenary suit for enforcement of alleged contractual rights obviously cannot be maintained in the absence of contract. As statutory tenants, the plaintiffs’ rights are defined and regulated by the statute, which provides adequate procedures for redress of grievances by way of statutory remedies. Their failure to exhaust such remedies before the State Rent Administrator destroys their standing in equity. The right to equitable relief depends on the absence ot‘ adequate remedies under the law. (See Brownrigg v. Berk Estates, 276 App. Div. 566.) Present — Peek, P. J., Callahan, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 675, 117 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penfield-v-murray-hill-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack