Punia & Marx, Inc. v. McGoldrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Punia & Marx, Inc. v. McGoldrick

1 A.D.2d 1027, 151 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5389

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

DecidedMay 15, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 1027 (Punia & Marx, Inc. v. McGoldrick) 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

Punia & Marx, Inc. v. McGoldrick, 1 A.D.2d 1027, 151 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to review a determination of the State Rent Administrator granting the landlord permission to convert from manual to automatic elevators on condition that certain specified services be furnished, the appeal is from an order denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to respondent for reconsideration of the provision requiring appellant to furnish the services of a basement attendant. This provision is predicated, in part, upon a finding that there is no way of “ closing off ” the fire stairway leading from the basement to the upper portions of the building. In view of appellant’s offer to equip the door at the foot of said stairway with a “Panic Exit Device ”, a description of which appears in the record, this finding is erroneous. We do not pass on the adequacy of such a device in the circumstances here present. Upon the reconsideration, respondent may also take into account appellant’s claim that there is no interior connection between the elevator and fire stairway areas of the basement, and that, other than these two facilities, there is no means of ascent. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., not voting.

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

In a proceeding to review a determination of the State Rent Administrator granting the landlord permission to convert from manual to automatic elevators on condition that certain specified services be furnished, the appeal is from an order denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to respondent for reconsideration of the provision requiring appellant to furnish the services of a basement attendant. This provision is predicated, in part, upon a finding that there is no way of “ closing off ” the fire stairway leading from the basement to the upper portions of the building. In view of appellant’s offer to equip the door at the foot of said stairway with a “Panic Exit Device ”, a description of which appears in the record, this finding is erroneous. We do not pass on the adequacy of such a device in the circumstances here present. Upon the reconsideration, respondent may also take into account appellant’s claim that there is no interior connection between the elevator and fire stairway areas of the basement, and that, other than these two facilities, there is no means of ascent. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 1027, 151 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/punia-marx-inc-v-mcgoldrick-nyappdiv-1956.