Vail v. York Hill Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vail v. York Hill Properties, Inc.

1 A.D.2d 952, 151 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5631

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

DecidedApril 30, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 952 (Vail v. York Hill Properties, Inc.) 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

Vail v. York Hill Properties, Inc., 1 A.D.2d 952, 151 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination affirmed, with costs to the respondents. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente and Bastow, JJ.; Cox and Prank, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and order a new trial in the following memorandum: The determination of the Appellate Term should be reversed and this matter sent back to the Municipal Court for a new trial. There was no proof offered in the Municipal Court to show that the premises were located in a residential district which fact certainly should have been known to the defendants. The tenant, regardless of his intention, was not permitted to use the premises for a business use and should not be compelled to pay for that which he could not enjoy. No consideration was given to the fact that when the landlord was informed that the premises could not be used for com[953]*953mercial property, he took no steps to reduce the tenant’s rent to the amount fixed by the Rent Administrator. (Sylvester v. Bernstein, 283 App. Div. 333, affd. 307 N. Y. 778.)

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

Determination affirmed, with costs to the respondents. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente and Bastow, JJ.; Cox and Prank, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and order a new trial in the following memorandum: The determination of the Appellate Term should be reversed and this matter sent back to the Municipal Court for a new trial. There was no proof offered in the Municipal Court to show that the premises were located in a residential district which fact certainly should have been known to the defendants. The tenant, regardless of his intention, was not permitted to use the premises for a business use and should not be compelled to pay for that which he could not enjoy. No consideration was given to the fact that when the landlord was informed that the premises could not be used for com[953]*953mercial property, he took no steps to reduce the tenant’s rent to the amount fixed by the Rent Administrator. (Sylvester v. Bernstein, 283 App. Div. 333, affd. 307 N. Y. 778.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 952, 151 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vail-v-york-hill-properties-inc-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack