Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of FULTON REDEVELOPMENT CO., INC., Petitioner, v. IRVING B. KENDALL, as Associate City Judge of the City of Mount Vernon, Respondent

ROBERT J. TRAINOR, J.

This is a proceeding, pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR, for a judgment directing the Honorable IRVING B. KENDALL, Associate City Court Judge of the City of Mount Vernon, to vacate a temporary stay he granted in a summary proceeding to recover real property which he had decided in petitioner's favor. There is also before the court a cross motion by the respondent to dismiss the proceeding.

Petitioner's sole argument is that a City Court Judge has no authority to stay the issuance of a warrant of eviction under the facts of this case. This court does not agree.

While it is true that the authority contained in subdivision 4 of section 751 Real Prop. Acts. of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, which expressly authorized such a stay was not extended beyond September 1, 1967, this is not to say that a City Court Judge was thereby deprived of the authority to grant such a stay in a proper case. CPLR 2201 states: "Except where otherwise prescribed by law, the court in which an action is pending may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, upon such terms as may be just."

By virtue of UCCA 212 and 2102 this authority is extended to the City Courts. (2 Rasch, New York Law of Landlord and Tenant and Summary Proceedings [1970 Supp.], p. 179; Canigiani v. Deptula, 59 Misc.2d 401.) To hold otherwise would result in an unreasonable curtailment of the lower courts' ability to respond to the equities of a particular case.

Accordingly, this proceeding should be dismissed. In view of the foregoing the court finds that it is not necessary to render any decision on the cross motion by the respondent.

Submit order on notice.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FULTON REDEVEL. CO. v. KENDALL
(Jul 20, 1971)