Walton v. Krismart Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Walton v. Krismart Corp.

93 Misc. 2d 73, 403 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1977 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2644

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 30, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 Misc. 2d 73 (Walton v. Krismart Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walton v. Krismart Corp., 93 Misc. 2d 73, 403 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1977 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Final judgment unanimously reversed, with $30 costs, and petition dismissed.

In this holdover summary proceeding, a final judgment of possession was rendered in favor of landlord as the court below held that the Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations [74]*74promulgated by the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal relating to evictions (9 NYCRR Part 2504) were not authorized by the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L 1974, ch 576, § 4). However, it is our opinion that such regulations were validly adopted as the power to promulgate them was impliedly granted by the enabling statute (see O’Connor v Hendrick, 184 NY 421, 426; see, also, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, § 364). We, therefore, reject the holding in Strausman v Bram (79 Misc 2d 875). Since landlord failed to prove at the trial that tenant committed any acts which would be a basis for terminating the tenancy, pursuant to section 2504.2 of the Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations, the petition must be dismissed.

Concur: Farley, P. J., Pittoni and Silberman, JJ.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Final judgment unanimously reversed, with $30 costs, and petition dismissed.

In this holdover summary proceeding, a final judgment of possession was rendered in favor of landlord as the court below held that the Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations [74]*74promulgated by the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal relating to evictions (9 NYCRR Part 2504) were not authorized by the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L 1974, ch 576, § 4). However, it is our opinion that such regulations were validly adopted as the power to promulgate them was impliedly granted by the enabling statute (see O’Connor v Hendrick, 184 NY 421, 426; see, also, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, § 364). We, therefore, reject the holding in Strausman v Bram (79 Misc 2d 875). Since landlord failed to prove at the trial that tenant committed any acts which would be a basis for terminating the tenancy, pursuant to section 2504.2 of the Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations, the petition must be dismissed.

Concur: Farley, P. J., Pittoni and Silberman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 Misc. 2d 73, 403 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1977 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-krismart-corp-nyappterm-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack