History
  • No items yet
midpage
Six-Ten Corp. v. Oppell
186 Misc. 628
N.Y. App. Term.
1945
Check Treatment
Memorandum Per Curiam.

The tenant’s occupancy of the basement apartment is in violation of láw. 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 peti*629tion, with costs, without prejudice to application for stay under section 1436-a of the Civil Practice Act.

Hammeb, Shientag and Edeb, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

Case Details

Case Name: Six-Ten Corp. v. Oppell
Court Name: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Date Published: Jun 25, 1945
Citation: 186 Misc. 628
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Term.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.