Legal Opinion

Kellong Holding Corp. v. Wilson

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided November 25, 1959PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Neither the retention of money orders reflecting current rent, nor acceptance of reduced rental pursuant to an order of the Bent Commission, later revoked, constitutes basis for either waiver or estoppel. While the order of the Bent Commission was in effect, the landlord was forbidden to accept more than the rent fixed therein. Moreover, the Civil Practice Act permits the maintenance of summary proceedings upon default in payment of rent where the occupancy is “with or without the permission of the landlord ’\ (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1410, subd. 2; Wasservogel v. Meyerowitz, 300 N. Y. 125; 504…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Wasservogel v. MeyerowitzNew York Court of Appeals · 1949

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Yorkshire Associates v. HalpernNew York Supreme Court · 1962
  2. D'Esposito v. GabelNew York Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Ferrer v. ZolkoAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API