Smith v. Stevens

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Stevens

190 Misc. 457, 75 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3377

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 30, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 190 Misc. 457 (Smith v. Stevens) 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

Smith v. Stevens, 190 Misc. 457, 75 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Memorandum The case was tried on the theory that the tenant had violated a substantial obligation of her tenancy in use of the premises in violation of law, in occupying same for single-room occupancy.

There is neither allegation nor proof that the tenant was given notice of the existence of any violation, and continued the same or failed to cure such violation after written notice by the landlord that the violation cease. The petition was jurisdictionally defective, and on the evidence there is no basis shown for the right to institute and maintain this proceeding (see [458]*458Jomar Realty Corp. v. Goldstein, 62 N. Y. S. 2d 196; Rosmor Realty Corp. v. Daviness, 63 N. Y. S. 2d 356; Frank Bros. Footwear, Inc., v. Cook, 66 N. Y. S. 2d 275).

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

McLaughlin, Edeb and Hecht, Jb., JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Memorandum The case was tried on the theory that the tenant had violated a substantial obligation of her tenancy in use of the premises in violation of law, in occupying same for single-room occupancy.

There is neither allegation nor proof that the tenant was given notice of the existence of any violation, and continued the same or failed to cure such violation after written notice by the landlord that the violation cease. The petition was jurisdictionally defective, and on the evidence there is no basis shown for the right to institute and maintain this proceeding (see [458]*458Jomar Realty Corp. v. Goldstein, 62 N. Y. S. 2d 196; Rosmor Realty Corp. v. Daviness, 63 N. Y. S. 2d 356; Frank Bros. Footwear, Inc., v. Cook, 66 N. Y. S. 2d 275).

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

McLaughlin, Edeb and Hecht, Jb., JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 Misc. 457, 75 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-stevens-nyappterm-1947.