AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
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

In the Matter of the Application of KATHARINE C. TOTHILL, Respondent, for an Order Removing HERBERT L. LAUTZ, Appellant, from Premises in the City of Lockport.

Orders reversed on the law, with costs, and petition dismissed, with costs, on the ground that the petition (a) was not sufficient in that the notice did not state the facts required by the amendment of May 27, 1946, to the Office of Price Administration regulations, and (b) that the facts established did not show an immediate compelling necessity. All concur, except Dowling and Harris, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance. (See Ellenbogen v. Caldwell, 270 App. Div. 946; Matter of Hollis v. Gelbach, 270 App. Div. 1063, motion for leave to appeal denied 296 N.Y. 1058; Staudigl v. Harper, 173 P.2d 343 [Cal.].) (The order appealed from affirms a final order of the Lockport City Court awarding possession of certain premises to the petitioner.)

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF TOTHILL
(Apr 30, 1947)