Tessler v. Tessler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tessler v. Tessler

81 A.D.3d 408, 916 N.Y.S.2d 767

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 1, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.3d 408 (Tessler v. Tessler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tessler v. Tessler, 81 A.D.3d 408, 916 N.Y.S.2d 767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered on or about July 14, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, affirmed the judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Pam B. Jackman-Brown, J), entered on or about February 6, 2008, after a nonjury trial,, inter alia, denying petitioner’s request for use and occupancy damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, including respondent’s limited financial circumstances, the Civil Court acted within its discretion in denying an award of an additional amount of use and occupancy permitted by the statute (RPAPL 753 [2]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 24 Misc 3d 135(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 51490(U).]

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

— Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered on or about July 14, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, affirmed the judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Pam B. Jackman-Brown, J), entered on or about February 6, 2008, after a nonjury trial,, inter alia, denying petitioner’s request for use and occupancy damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, including respondent’s limited financial circumstances, the Civil Court acted within its discretion in denying an award of an additional amount of use and occupancy permitted by the statute (RPAPL 753 [2]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 24 Misc 3d 135(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 51490(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.3d 408, 916 N.Y.S.2d 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tessler-v-tessler-nyappdiv-2011.