Rubett Realty Corp. v. Uretzski

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rubett Realty Corp. v. Uretzski

128 Misc. 463, 219 N.Y.S. 551, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 847

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 24, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 128 Misc. 463 (Rubett Realty Corp. v. Uretzski) 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

Rubett Realty Corp. v. Uretzski, 128 Misc. 463, 219 N.Y.S. 551, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The separate defense alleged, facts, ultimate though they may be, which had arisen since the period for which a prior adjudication had been made. It was, therefore, a proper pleading under section 7 of the Rent Laws (as added to Laws of 1920, chap. 136, by Laws of 1921, chap. 434), and the tenants should have been permitted to prove such facts. If the landlord required details of such defense it should have procured the evidentiary facts by way of bill of particulars.

Final order, judgment and order striking out defense reversed and a new trial ordered, with ten dollars costs to appellants, and motion to strike out defense denied.

Present — Bijur, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.; Levy, J., dissents.

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

Per Curiam.

The separate defense alleged, facts, ultimate though they may be, which had arisen since the period for which a prior adjudication had been made. It was, therefore, a proper pleading under section 7 of the Rent Laws (as added to Laws of 1920, chap. 136, by Laws of 1921, chap. 434), and the tenants should have been permitted to prove such facts. If the landlord required details of such defense it should have procured the evidentiary facts by way of bill of particulars.

Final order, judgment and order striking out defense reversed and a new trial ordered, with ten dollars costs to appellants, and motion to strike out defense denied.

Present — Bijur, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.; Levy, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 Misc. 463, 219 N.Y.S. 551, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubett-realty-corp-v-uretzski-nyappterm-1926.