Legal Opinion
89-09 Sutphin Corp. v. Scarinzi
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided October 3, 1946PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Per curiam
Memorandum The landlord did not terminate the tenancy by any notice. Summary proceedings, therefore, could not be instituted (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1410).
No new ground for summary proceedings is created by subdivision (b) of section 8 of chapter 314 of the Laws of 1945. Before the statute, a landlord’was required to establish a.contractual right to terminate the tenancy for a breach (Michaels v. Fishel, 169 N. Y. 381, 389) and was obliged to exercise that right before instituting summary proceedings. (Burnee Corp. v. Uneeda Pure Orange Brink Co., Inc., 132 Misc. 435; Janes v. Paddell, 67 Misc.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Michaels v. . FishelNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Burnee Corp. v. Uneeda Pure Orange Drink Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1928
- Janes v. PaddellNew York Supreme Court · 1910
3Cited by7 opinions
- Al-El Corp. v. RapaportCity of New York Municipal Court · 1953
- Beach Haven Apartments No. 4, Inc. v. VolfCivil Court of the City of New York · 1979
- Blum v. LewisAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1948
- 207-17 West 25th St. Co. v. Blu-Strike Safety Razor Blade Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1948
- Hudson Hills Tenant Corp. v. StovelAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.