Zarfin Realty Corp. v. Reilly

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Zarfin Realty Corp. v. Reilly

21 Misc. 2d 273, 193 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2592

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 19, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Misc. 2d 273 (Zarfin Realty Corp. v. Reilly) 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

Zarfin Realty Corp. v. Reilly, 21 Misc. 2d 273, 193 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Single room occupancy by more than the permitted number of persons does not of itself establish illegality; it must be shown further that one or more of the requirements of section 248 of the Multiple Dwelling Law and section D-26-3.7 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York were not satisfied (Shapiro v. Collins, 6 A D 2d 1038; Realty Associates, v. Bausch, 17 Misc 2d 874). There was no attempt to show that these requirements had not been met, other than through the notice of violation of the Department of Buildings and that notice is completely silent with respect to the physical conditions in the apartment. The final order is therefore reversed and a new trial ordered to afford the landlord the opportunity to establish that there was illegal occupancy.

The final order should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Final order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Single room occupancy by more than the permitted number of persons does not of itself establish illegality; it must be shown further that one or more of the requirements of section 248 of the Multiple Dwelling Law and section D-26-3.7 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York were not satisfied (Shapiro v. Collins, 6 A D 2d 1038; Realty Associates, v. Bausch, 17 Misc 2d 874). There was no attempt to show that these requirements had not been met, other than through the notice of violation of the Department of Buildings and that notice is completely silent with respect to the physical conditions in the apartment. The final order is therefore reversed and a new trial ordered to afford the landlord the opportunity to establish that there was illegal occupancy.

The final order should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Final order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Misc. 2d 273, 193 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zarfin-realty-corp-v-reilly-nyappterm-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack