People v. Robertson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Robertson

281 A.D. 990, 120 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4026

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

DecidedApril 20, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 990 (People v. Robertson) 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

People v. Robertson, 281 A.D. 990, 120 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of a City Magistrate, holding a Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, convicting defendant of violating the provisions of section 78 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, in that a refrigerator was not kept in repair, reversed on the law and the facts, the complaint dismissed and the fine remitted. In our opinion, a refrigerator installed by a landlord in an apartment in a multiple dwelling is a part of the premises which must be kept in repair under section 78 of the Multiple Dwelling Law. (Cf. Herring v. Slattery & Bros., 291 N. Y. 794.) Defendant, the superintendent of the building, who collected the rents and could order some repairs to be made, was the agent in control of the dwelling within the purview of subdivision 44 of section 4 and subdivision 8 of section 304 of that statute. (Cf. People v. Friedman, 300 N. Y. 694; People v. Pease & Elliman, 173 App. Div. 752, affd. 219 N. Y. 627, and People v. Higgins, 273 App. Div. 971.) Defendant's guilt, however, was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of a City Magistrate, holding a Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, convicting defendant of violating the provisions of section 78 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, in that a refrigerator was not kept in repair, reversed on the law and the facts, the complaint dismissed and the fine remitted. In our opinion, a refrigerator installed by a landlord in an apartment in a multiple dwelling is a part of the premises which must be kept in repair under section 78 of the Multiple Dwelling Law. (Cf. Herring v. Slattery & Bros., 291 N. Y. 794.) Defendant, the superintendent of the building, who collected the rents and could order some repairs to be made, was the agent in control of the dwelling within the purview of subdivision 44 of section 4 and subdivision 8 of section 304 of that statute. (Cf. People v. Friedman, 300 N. Y. 694; People v. Pease & Elliman, 173 App. Div. 752, affd. 219 N. Y. 627, and People v. Higgins, 273 App. Div. 971.) Defendant's guilt, however, was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 990, 120 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robertson-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack