U.B.O. Realty Corp. v. Mollica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

U.B.O. Realty Corp. v. Mollica

258 A.D.2d 460, 683 N.Y.S.2d 532

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 460 (U.B.O. Realty Corp. v. Mollica) 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

U.B.O. Realty Corp. v. Mollica, 258 A.D.2d 460, 683 N.Y.S.2d 532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department (McCooe, J. P., Freedman and Davis, JJ.), entered December 15, 1997, which, in a holdover proceeding, affirmed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Leona Freedman, J.), entered on or about September 13, 1996, dismissing the proceeding after trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Despite the commercial nature of the leases, the finding that petitioner landlord knew of or acquiesced in respondent tenant’s residential use of these store front premises has sufficient support in the record and, accordingly, the petition was properly dismissed (see, Ten Be Or Not Ten Be v Dibbs, NYLJ, June 12, 1985, at 11, col 4, affd 117 AD2d 1028; West Side Equities v Cerigo, NYLJ, June 17, 1993, at 24, col 1). We note the premises were already equipped for residential use when respondent moved in, the length and character of respondent’s residential tenancy, and the deletion from the last lease, at respondent’s request, of the phrase “and for no other purpose” from the provision limiting use of the premises to a copy shop. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Tom, JJ. [See, 175 Misc 2d 897.]

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, First Department (McCooe, J. P., Freedman and Davis, JJ.), entered December 15, 1997, which, in a holdover proceeding, affirmed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Leona Freedman, J.), entered on or about September 13, 1996, dismissing the proceeding after trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Despite the commercial nature of the leases, the finding that petitioner landlord knew of or acquiesced in respondent tenant’s residential use of these store front premises has sufficient support in the record and, accordingly, the petition was properly dismissed (see, Ten Be Or Not Ten Be v Dibbs, NYLJ, June 12, 1985, at 11, col 4, affd 117 AD2d 1028; West Side Equities v Cerigo, NYLJ, June 17, 1993, at 24, col 1). We note the premises were already equipped for residential use when respondent moved in, the length and character of respondent’s residential tenancy, and the deletion from the last lease, at respondent’s request, of the phrase “and for no other purpose” from the provision limiting use of the premises to a copy shop. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Tom, JJ. [See, 175 Misc 2d 897.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 460, 683 N.Y.S.2d 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ubo-realty-corp-v-mollica-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack