Seligmann v. Parcel One Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seligmann v. Parcel One Co.

170 A.D.2d 344, 566 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2214

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 170 A.D.2d 344 (Seligmann v. Parcel One Co.) 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

Seligmann v. Parcel One Co., 170 A.D.2d 344, 566 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered May 23, 1990, which denied plaintiffs motion for a Yellowstone injunction tolling a ten [345]*345day notice to cure, dated March 15, 1990, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and plaintiffs motion granted, without costs.

In light of the predictable uncertainties inherent in removing plaintiffs housekeeper, who allegedly has lived in the 94-year-old plaintiff’s apartment with her family for the past 25 years as a condition of her employment, in the event it is determined that their occupancy of the apartment constitutes an illegal sublet or assignment, it cannot be said that the ten day stay available to plaintiff in Housing Court pursuant to RPAPL 753 (4) would be sufficient and plaintiffs motion for a Yellowstone injunction should have been granted. In granting this relief, we take plaintiffs counsel at his word (on oral argument) that he will not seek a stay or dismissal of the summary proceeding on the basis of the pendency of this action. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered May 23, 1990, which denied plaintiffs motion for a Yellowstone injunction tolling a ten [345]*345day notice to cure, dated March 15, 1990, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and plaintiffs motion granted, without costs.

In light of the predictable uncertainties inherent in removing plaintiffs housekeeper, who allegedly has lived in the 94-year-old plaintiff’s apartment with her family for the past 25 years as a condition of her employment, in the event it is determined that their occupancy of the apartment constitutes an illegal sublet or assignment, it cannot be said that the ten day stay available to plaintiff in Housing Court pursuant to RPAPL 753 (4) would be sufficient and plaintiffs motion for a Yellowstone injunction should have been granted. In granting this relief, we take plaintiffs counsel at his word (on oral argument) that he will not seek a stay or dismissal of the summary proceeding on the basis of the pendency of this action. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 344, 566 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seligmann-v-parcel-one-co-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack