Shotland v. Mulligan

121 N.Y.S. 298
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Shotland v. Mulligan. Read the opinion of the Court — 60 Misc. 58
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided February 18, 1910·Published

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

This proceeding was brought to dispossess the tenant from real estate after default in the payment of rent. A final order has been entered in favor of the tenant, and the landlord appeals.

There is in the record no evidence of any demand of the rent, or that three days’ notice, requiring in the alternative the payment of the rent or the possession of «the premises, was served. Under the statute, evidence of this character is necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the justice to entertain this proceeding. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2231, 2240; Beach v. McGovern, 41 App. Div. 381, 58 N. Y. Supp. 493; Tolman v. Heading, 11 App. Div. 264, 42 N. Y. Supp. 217; Zinsser v. Herman, 23 Misc. Rep. 645, 52 N. Y. Supp. 107. In the absence of such evidence, the justice before whom the proceeding was tried properly entered an order dismissing the petition.

The order appealed from is incorrect, in so far as it assumes to dismiss the petition “upon the merits.”

Order modified, by striking out the words “upon the merits,” and inserting the words “without prejudice to a new proceeding,” and, as modified, affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Shotland v. Mulligan, 121 N.Y.S. 298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

121 N.Y.S. 298 (Shotland v. Mulligan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tolman v. Heading
11 A.D. 264 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Beach v. McGovern
41 A.D. 381 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Zinsser v. Herrman
23 Misc. 645 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Tolman v. Heading
42 N.Y.S. 217 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)