Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lipkis v. Pikus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 5, 1984Published

1Dissent

Kassal, J. (dissenting).

I join in the dissent by Justice Fein except with respect to the direction for the payment of past, current and future rents. In view of the lengthy history of nonpayment of rents, the landlord is entitled to *687have all arrears paid and the tenants should be directed to pay current use and occupancy directly to the landlord at the rate currently provided for as rent on each rental due date. This should continue until further order of the court or the Loft Board and would afford necessary and fair protection to both parties. (See Pilgreen v 91 Fifth Ave. Corp., 91 AD2d…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Eli Haddad Corp. v. Cal Redmond StudioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  2. Pilgreen v. 91 Fifth Avenue Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API