Union Dime Savings Bank v. Frohlich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Union Dime Savings Bank v. Frohlich

57 A.D.2d 862, 394 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12085

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

DecidedMay 9, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 862 (Union Dime Savings Bank v. Frohlich) 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

Union Dime Savings Bank v. Frohlich, 57 A.D.2d 862, 394 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding, inter alia, to evict a tenant, the appeal (by permission) is from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, dated September 22, 1976, which reversed a judgment of the District Court, Nassau County, Third District, in favor of the appellant tenants and awarded possession and a money judgment to the respondent landlord. Order affirmed, with costs. The appellant tenants were not physically expelled or excluded from the demised premises. Therefore, a partial, actual eviction had not occurred. The tenants cannot claim a constructive eviction since at no time did they abandon the premises. Hopkins, J. P., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding, inter alia, to evict a tenant, the appeal (by permission) is from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, dated September 22, 1976, which reversed a judgment of the District Court, Nassau County, Third District, in favor of the appellant tenants and awarded possession and a money judgment to the respondent landlord. Order affirmed, with costs. The appellant tenants were not physically expelled or excluded from the demised premises. Therefore, a partial, actual eviction had not occurred. The tenants cannot claim a constructive eviction since at no time did they abandon the premises. Hopkins, J. P., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 862, 394 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-dime-savings-bank-v-frohlich-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack