Powers v. Babic

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Powers v. Babic

143 Misc. 2d 58, 543 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1989 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 908

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 9, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 143 Misc. 2d 58 (Powers v. Babic) 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

Powers v. Babic, 143 Misc. 2d 58, 543 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1989 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment entered July 8, 1988 reversed, and the matter is remanded to the Housing Court for further proceedings consistent with this decision, with $30 costs to abide the event.

[59]*59In this owner occupancy proceeding, the Housing Court dismissed the petition after trial upon the ground that the 120-150-day notice of nonrenewal was defective. To the contrary, we conclude that the notice of February 26, 1986, timely served, was adequate to inform tenant of the reason for nonrenewal of the lease within the intendment of section 60 of the former Code of the Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc. (see, Satraj Props. v Toral, NYLJ, Feb. 14, 1986, at 12, col 4 [App Term, 1st Dept]).

Because the proceeding was dismissed upon notice grounds, the trial court did not have occasion to reach the substantive merits of landlord’s petition. Whether the owner is proceeding in good faith to recover possession of the premises for the use of immediate family members presents questions of fact and credibility which, on this record, are more appropriately resolved in the first instant by the nisi prius court which heard the testimony and observed the witnesses. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Housing Court for findings of fact on the issue of good faith. We express no opinion on that issue at this time.

Ostrau, P. J., Parness and McCooe, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment entered July 8, 1988 reversed, and the matter is remanded to the Housing Court for further proceedings consistent with this decision, with $30 costs to abide the event.

[59]*59In this owner occupancy proceeding, the Housing Court dismissed the petition after trial upon the ground that the 120-150-day notice of nonrenewal was defective. To the contrary, we conclude that the notice of February 26, 1986, timely served, was adequate to inform tenant of the reason for nonrenewal of the lease within the intendment of section 60 of the former Code of the Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc. (see, Satraj Props. v Toral, NYLJ, Feb. 14, 1986, at 12, col 4 [App Term, 1st Dept]).

Because the proceeding was dismissed upon notice grounds, the trial court did not have occasion to reach the substantive merits of landlord’s petition. Whether the owner is proceeding in good faith to recover possession of the premises for the use of immediate family members presents questions of fact and credibility which, on this record, are more appropriately resolved in the first instant by the nisi prius court which heard the testimony and observed the witnesses. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Housing Court for findings of fact on the issue of good faith. We express no opinion on that issue at this time.

Ostrau, P. J., Parness and McCooe, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 Misc. 2d 58, 543 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1989 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powers-v-babic-nyappterm-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack