Legal Opinion

147 East 84th St. Corp. v. McGoldrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 24, 1953PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Concededly in the subject seven-story apartment building, doorman or lobby attendant services had never been furnished on the operative date or at any time and hence could not be considered as essential services required by law (Matter of R. E. Associates v. McGoldrick, 280 App. Div. 202, 204). Whether doorman service is or is not essential depends upon the particular facts in each case. On the state of facts here presented, applying the rule set forth by this court in the above-cited ease, we think the Administrator’s direction compelling the landlord to supply the sixteen-hour lobby or…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. R. E. Associates, Inc. v. McGoldrickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
  2. Efef Associates, Inc. v. McGoldrickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Jerlan Holding Corp. v. McGoldrickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
  2. Jerlan Holding Corp. v. McGoldrickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
  3. Juxbush Realty Corp. v. Temporary State Housing Rent CommissionAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API