Legal Opinion
Metz v. Duenas
Nassau County District Court
Decided February 1, 2000PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Kenneth L. Gartner, J.
In thirteenth century England, á plaintiff was required to state his case in “a formal statement bristling with sacramental words an omission of which would be fatal.” (2 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, at 605 [1968].) A chronicler of late-twentieth century New York landlord-tenant law might conclude that little had changed, as courts routinely implemented the maxim that, summary proceedings being creatures of statute, notices and petitions commencing them had to be “strictly construed.” In 1984, the Appellate Division, Second…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Schwartz v. Public AdministratorNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- Wall Street Associates v. BrodskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- MSG Pomp Corp. v. DoeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Jackson v. New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1976
- Burnee Corp. v. Uneeda Pure Orange Drink Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1928
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Chun v. North American Mortgage Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- ATM One, LLC v. EscobarNassau County District Court · 2002
- Neighbors of Watertown, Inc. v. PearsonWatertown City Court · 2005