Taylor v. Anderson

New York Supreme Court

Taylor v. Anderson

194 Misc. 489, 87 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3834

DecidedDecember 23, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 194 Misc. 489 (Taylor v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Anderson, 194 Misc. 489, 87 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3834 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Pecora, J.

The causes of action alleged in the complaint are insufficient under the decision of Thomsen v. Texon (189 Misc. 972). Under the Commercial or Business Rent Control Laws (L. 1945, ch. 3, § 8, subd. [d], as amd.; L. 1945, ch. 314, § 8, subd. [d], as amd.), specific provisions are made for an action for damages where the landlord does not occupy the premises after removing the tenant. However, the instant case does not involve business or commercial space. There is no cause of action for obtaining a final order in a summary proceeding, where allegations are made that defendants imposed on the Municipal Court in securing the dispossess warrant. Relief under the emergency rent laws is purely statutory in character. If the Legislature saw fit to grant a cause of action in one set of cases, and not provide for one in situations which do not involve business or commercial space, the courts cannot do so by judicial legislation.

The motion to dismiss the complaint and for judgment on the pleadings is granted. Settle order.

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

Pecora, J.

The causes of action alleged in the complaint are insufficient under the decision of Thomsen v. Texon (189 Misc. 972). Under the Commercial or Business Rent Control Laws (L. 1945, ch. 3, § 8, subd. [d], as amd.; L. 1945, ch. 314, § 8, subd. [d], as amd.), specific provisions are made for an action for damages where the landlord does not occupy the premises after removing the tenant. However, the instant case does not involve business or commercial space. There is no cause of action for obtaining a final order in a summary proceeding, where allegations are made that defendants imposed on the Municipal Court in securing the dispossess warrant. Relief under the emergency rent laws is purely statutory in character. If the Legislature saw fit to grant a cause of action in one set of cases, and not provide for one in situations which do not involve business or commercial space, the courts cannot do so by judicial legislation.

The motion to dismiss the complaint and for judgment on the pleadings is granted. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 Misc. 489, 87 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-anderson-nysupct-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack