Darling Shops, Inc. v. Lord's Specialty Shop, Inc.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
1Per curiam
Memorandum The court below was warranted in concluding that the landlord did not prove that it sought in good faith to recover possession of the premises for its own immediate and personal use. The addition of the phrase “ without prejudice to a renewal thereof ’ ’ had no special significance (N. Y. City Mun. Ct. Code, § 125; L. 1915, ch. 279, as amd.; Saraga v. Strauss, 208 App. Div. 66); in any event, where a landlord seeks to recover possession, an earlier decision based *340on the failure to meet the statutory requirements is a binding adjudication only as to the situation as it existed at…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Saraga v. StraussAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
3Cited by1 opinion
- Harnick v. JawitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953