Shelly v. Cohen

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Shelly v. Cohen

26 Misc. 831, 57 N.Y.S. 247

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Misc. 831 (Shelly v. Cohen) 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

Shelly v. Cohen, 26 Misc. 831, 57 N.Y.S. 247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLean, J.

The petitioner herein alleged that while in actual occupation and possession of the premises Mo. 324 East Seventy-first street, in the city of Mew York, the defendants, on or about June 2, 1898, unlawfully and forcibly ejected him and his agents, from the premises, and on that day and divers days thereafter held possession of said premises by force. The petitioner himself, however, testified that he had never been upon the premises, and the evidence further introduced on his behalf showed at best but constructive possession through an assignment of a lease from one Wenzel Hoffman, whose occupation and possession, so far as appears from the evidence, had never been forcibly disturbed, taken away or withheld.

The order of the Municipal Court, dismissing the petition, should be affirmed, with costs.

Freedman, P. J., and Leventritt, J., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

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

MacLean, J.

The petitioner herein alleged that while in actual occupation and possession of the premises Mo. 324 East Seventy-first street, in the city of Mew York, the defendants, on or about June 2, 1898, unlawfully and forcibly ejected him and his agents, from the premises, and on that day and divers days thereafter held possession of said premises by force. The petitioner himself, however, testified that he had never been upon the premises, and the evidence further introduced on his behalf showed at best but constructive possession through an assignment of a lease from one Wenzel Hoffman, whose occupation and possession, so far as appears from the evidence, had never been forcibly disturbed, taken away or withheld.

The order of the Municipal Court, dismissing the petition, should be affirmed, with costs.

Freedman, P. J., and Leventritt, J., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Misc. 831, 57 N.Y.S. 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelly-v-cohen-nyappterm-1899.