Wigod v. Janina Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wigod v. Janina Realty Corp.

275 A.D.2d 717

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 717 (Wigod v. Janina Realty Corp.) 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

Wigod v. Janina Realty Corp., 275 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

In our [718]*718opinion, a tenant is not entitled to maintain an action under the provisions of subdivision (d) of section 8 of the Business Rent Law where the removal by the tenants results solely from a demand by the landlord to vacate at the expiration of the tenant’s lease. (Joanette Juniors, Inc., v. Board of Home Missions of Cong. & Christian Churches, 298 N. Y. 826; Cleaners Holding Corp. v. Trunz, Inc., 272 App. Div. 825.) However, where the removal is brought about by the fraudulent representations of the landlord, it is immaterial by what method the removal or “ dispossession ” of the tenant is effected. (Vernat, Inc., v. Cross & Brown Co., 273 App. Div. 843; Tourneur Realty Corp. v. Frank Bros. Footwear, 274 App. Div. 1049.) Since the affidavits present issues of fact, summary judgment may not be granted with respect to the second cause of action. Present ■ — • Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed, and MacCrate, JJ. [193 Misc. 397.]

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

In our [718]*718opinion, a tenant is not entitled to maintain an action under the provisions of subdivision (d) of section 8 of the Business Rent Law where the removal by the tenants results solely from a demand by the landlord to vacate at the expiration of the tenant’s lease. (Joanette Juniors, Inc., v. Board of Home Missions of Cong. & Christian Churches, 298 N. Y. 826; Cleaners Holding Corp. v. Trunz, Inc., 272 App. Div. 825.) However, where the removal is brought about by the fraudulent representations of the landlord, it is immaterial by what method the removal or “ dispossession ” of the tenant is effected. (Vernat, Inc., v. Cross & Brown Co., 273 App. Div. 843; Tourneur Realty Corp. v. Frank Bros. Footwear, 274 App. Div. 1049.) Since the affidavits present issues of fact, summary judgment may not be granted with respect to the second cause of action. Present ■ — • Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed, and MacCrate, JJ. [193 Misc. 397.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wigod-v-janina-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack