South Carolina Leasing Co. v. Allen
This text of 32 Misc. 2d 659 (South Carolina Leasing Co. v. Allen) 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.
Opinion
The housing accommodations here involved are not subject to the emergency rent control laws. By remaining in possession after the expiration of his lease, tenant is deemed to have assented to the increased rental fixed by landlord in the notice sent before the lease expired. (Kaufman v. Bartels, 182 Misc. 128, motion for leave to appeal denied 268 App. Div. 864; Fordham Hill Associates v. Fiebach, 21 Misc 2d 277.) There is no requirement that such notice be annexed to the petition or that it be served in the same manner as a precept in a summary proceeding. (V. G. C. Realty Corp. v. Rosa, 193 N. Y. S. 2d 678.)
[660]*660The final order and judgment should be unanimously modified by increasing landlord’s recovery to $183 with appropriate costs in the court below and as so modified affirmed, without costs on this appeal.
Concur —- Hart, Di Giovanna and Brown, JJ.
Final order and judgment modified, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
32 Misc. 2d 659, 211 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-carolina-leasing-co-v-allen-nyappterm-1961.