From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

205 East 78th Street Associates v. Cassidy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 29, 1993
192 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Summary

In Cassidy, dismissal eventuated because the landlord accepted and retained a window-period payment and did not explain any alleged inadvertence.

Summary of this case from Underhill Realty Co. v. Almonte

Opinion

April 29, 1993


Order, Appellate Term, First Department, entered on October 3, 1991, reversing an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Louise Gans, J.), entered on March 19, 1991, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and with disbursements, for the reasons stated by Gans, J., at Civil Court and McCooe, J. at the Appellate Term. No opinion.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ellerin, Wallach and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

205 East 78th Street Associates v. Cassidy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 29, 1993
192 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

In Cassidy, dismissal eventuated because the landlord accepted and retained a window-period payment and did not explain any alleged inadvertence.

Summary of this case from Underhill Realty Co. v. Almonte
Case details for

205 East 78th Street Associates v. Cassidy

Case Details

Full title:205 EAST 78TH STREET ASSOCIATES, Respondent, v. MARY JANE CASSIDY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 29, 1993

Citations

192 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
598 N.Y.S.2d 699

Citing Cases

Silverleaf LP v. Griffin

The printout reflects HRA's issuance of similar shelter allowance checks for $392.22 each on June 2, June 17,…

Roxborough Apartment Corporation v. Becker

It is well settled in this Department that a landlord's acceptance of a tenant's rent after the tenancy is…