Randall v. La Farge

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Randall v. La Farge

188 Misc. 884, 69 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2233

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 13, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 188 Misc. 884 (Randall v. La Farge) 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

Randall v. La Farge, 188 Misc. 884, 69 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Memorandum In this summary proceeding by three petitioners to recover possession of premises under subdivision (d) of section 8 of the Commercial Rent Law (L. 1945, ch. 3, as amd. by L. 1946, ch. 272) the testimony of the landlords shows that the restaurant business is to be operated by a corporation the stock of which is owned by two of the petitioners.

We do not think that the proofs satisfy the requirement of the statute that the owners seek in good faith to recover possession for their immediate and personal use.

¡ Further, the record presents prejudicial error by the ruling of the Trial Judge refusing to submit to the jury the issue as to service of the thirty-day notice on the statutory monthly tenant.

The final order should be reversed, with $30 costs, and petition dismissed, with costs. ¡

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

Per Curiam.

Memorandum In this summary proceeding by three petitioners to recover possession of premises under subdivision (d) of section 8 of the Commercial Rent Law (L. 1945, ch. 3, as amd. by L. 1946, ch. 272) the testimony of the landlords shows that the restaurant business is to be operated by a corporation the stock of which is owned by two of the petitioners.

We do not think that the proofs satisfy the requirement of the statute that the owners seek in good faith to recover possession for their immediate and personal use.

¡ Further, the record presents prejudicial error by the ruling of the Trial Judge refusing to submit to the jury the issue as to service of the thirty-day notice on the statutory monthly tenant.

The final order should be reversed, with $30 costs, and petition dismissed, with costs. ¡

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 Misc. 884, 69 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-v-la-farge-nyappterm-1947.