Legal Opinion
Freehold Investments v. Richstone
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided March 7, 1972PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHarry T. Nusbaum, J.
The landlord’s petition to evict the tenant as a holdover on the ground that he has violated a substantial obligation of his tenancy is denied.
The landlord has failed to establish to this court’s satisfaction that the alleged “ alterations ” of the leased premises constitute waste or violated a substantial obligation of the tenancy. The changes made were purely decorative in nature and cannot be regarded as structural, or alterations which required the landlord’s consent.
In the case of Wall Nut Prods, v. Radar Cent, Corp. (20 A D 2d 125), the Appellate Division quoted with approval the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pross v. Excelsior Cleaning & Dyeing Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1920
- Cohen v. MargoliesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
- Klein's Rapid Shoe Repair Co. v. Sheppardel Realty Co.New York Supreme Court · 1929
- Sigsbee Holding Corp. v. CanavanCivil Court of the City of New York · 1963
- Klein's Rapid Shoe Repair Co. v. 120-122 East 14th Street Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rumiche Corp. v. EisenreichNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Harar Realty Corp. v. Michlin & Hill, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Britton v. YaziciogluAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Rumiche Corp. v. EisenreichAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975