Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
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)

SIX-TEN CORPORATION, Landlord, Appellant, v. HANS OPPELL, Tenant, Respondent. See, also, Tompkins

MEMORANDUM

Per Curiam.

The tenant's occupancy of the basement apartment is in violation of law. It thus became the duty of the landlord, after due notice from the Department of Housing and Buildings of the City of New York, to remove the tenant (Multiple Dwelling Law, § 216; Nordred Realties, Inc., v. Langley, 279 N.Y. 636). The fact that the landlord's predecessor in title permitted the occupancy under a lease is not binding on the present landlord, nor may it override the provisions of law.

The final order should be reversed, and final order awarded to petitioner for possession of the premises described in the petition, with costs, without prejudice to application for stay under section 1436-a of the Civil Practice Act.

HAMMER, SHIENTAG and EDER, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SIX-TEN CORP. v. OPPELL
(Jun 25, 1945)