Legal Opinion

Eyedent v. Vickers Management

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided March 21, 1988PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

2Per curiam

Order entered October 31, 1986 reversed, without costs, and petitioners’ motion for an order compelling respondents to correct violations at the subject premises is denied, without prejudice to petitioners’ right, if so advised, to maintain a proceeding for such relief as may be appropriate to compensate them for the loss of their tenancies.

The subject of this proceeding is premises 41-43 Avenue B in Manhattan, a lot which consists of two adjacent buildings containing some 20 apartments. The respondents are the owner and managing agent of the property, the former having…

3Cases cited3 opinions

Rubin v. Hevro Realty Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1975
Atco-Midwood Associates v. BenitezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
Harmor Operating Co. v. Vent-O-Matic Incinerator Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1956

4Cited by3 opinions

Eyedent v. Vickers ManagementAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
Bernard v. ScharfCivil Court of the City of New York · 1995
Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. Metropolitan Avenue Corp.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1990