Legal Opinion

40 Clinton Street Associates v. Dolgin

Civil Court of the City of New York

Decided October 22, 1984PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Margaret Taylor, J.

In their motions for summary judgment, respondents (Tenants) allege that the above nonpayment proceedings must be dismissed on the ground that petitioner (Landlord) is barred from maintaining any action or proceeding for the collection of rents because no certificate of occupancy exists for the premises (the building) and none existed during the period for which rents are claimed. Tenants base their motions on subdivision 1 of section 301 and section 302 (subd 1, par b) of the Multiple Dwelling Law.

The apartments in the building are rented for dwelling…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Baum Residence Corp. v. Van RossonAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1954
  2. Guarino v. TimaresAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1949

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. 111 on 11 Realty Corp. v. NortonCivil Court of the City of New York · 2001
  2. 58 East 130th Street LLC v. MoutonCivil Court of the City of New York · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API