In Matter of Kruckel v. McGoldrick (281 A.D. 811), the court held that where a landlord converted a cellar, which had been previously unoccupied, into a substandard apartment, it was not subject to control.
Summary of this case from Lo Presti v. McGoldrickFebruary 3, 1953.
Present — Dore, J.P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to petitioner-respondent. No opinion.
In Matter of Kruckel v. McGoldrick (281 A.D. 811), the court held that where a landlord converted a cellar, which had been previously unoccupied, into a substandard apartment, it was not subject to control.
Summary of this case from Lo Presti v. McGoldrickIn Matter of Kruckel v. McGoldrick (281 App. Div. 811), the court held that where a landlord converted a cellar, which had been previously unoccupied, into a substandard apartment, it was not subject to control.
Summary of this case from MATTER OF LO PRESTI v. McGoldrickFull title:In the Matter of RAY KRUCKEL, Respondent, against JOSEPH D. McGOLDRICK, as…
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Date published: Feb 3, 1953
The Administrator was in error in treating the present application as one to decontrol the premises. Here the…
MATTER OF LO PRESTI v. McGoldrickIn Matter of Paikoff v. McGoldrick (280 App. Div. 996), the court held that where a landlord remodelled…