Tranquillo v. Hausman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tranquillo v. Hausman

72 A.D.2d 811, 421 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14086

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.2d 811 (Tranquillo v. Hausman) 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

Tranquillo v. Hausman, 72 A.D.2d 811, 421 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to declare defendants’ proposed rental increase unconscionable and to determine a fair and reasonable increase, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 21, 1979, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered thereon on July 5, 1979. Appeal from the order dismissed (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment affirmed. [812]*812Defendants are awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. Special Term correctly concluded that no lease had been entered into and, therefore, that section 235-c of the Real Property Law was inapplicable. Concerning the asserted equitable cause of action, appellant’s bare conclusory allegation of malicious and unconscionable conduct was insufficient to raise an issue as to the propriety of respondents’ conduct. (See Euclid Ave. Assoc, v City of New York, 64 ÁD2d 550; Globerman v Grand Cent. Parkway Gardens, 115 NYS2d 757, affd 281 App Div 820.) Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Hargett and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to declare defendants’ proposed rental increase unconscionable and to determine a fair and reasonable increase, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 21, 1979, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered thereon on July 5, 1979. Appeal from the order dismissed (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment affirmed. [812]*812Defendants are awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. Special Term correctly concluded that no lease had been entered into and, therefore, that section 235-c of the Real Property Law was inapplicable. Concerning the asserted equitable cause of action, appellant’s bare conclusory allegation of malicious and unconscionable conduct was insufficient to raise an issue as to the propriety of respondents’ conduct. (See Euclid Ave. Assoc, v City of New York, 64 ÁD2d 550; Globerman v Grand Cent. Parkway Gardens, 115 NYS2d 757, affd 281 App Div 820.) Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Hargett and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 811, 421 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tranquillo-v-hausman-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack