Summary
In Six-Ten Corp. v. Oppell (supra) there was no proof that the buildings were converted dwellings or old-law tenements, and the proceedings therein were brought prior to the effective date of section 261 Mult. Dwell. of the Multiple Dwelling Law (see Tompkins v. Kornfeld, 186 Misc. 464, 469).
Summary of this case from Matter of Levine v. FinkelsteinOpinion
June 25, 1945.
Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, GARRISON, J.
Henry Laufbahn for appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
MEMORANDUM
The tenant's occupancy of the basement apartment is in violation of law. It thus became the duty of the landlord, after due notice from the Department of Housing and Buildings of the City of New York, to remove the tenant (Multiple Dwelling Law, § 216; Nordred Realties, Inc., v. Langley, 279 N.Y. 636). The fact that the landlord's predecessor in title permitted the occupancy under a lease is not binding on the present landlord, nor may it override the provisions of law.
The final order should be reversed, and final order awarded to petitioner for possession of the premises described in the petition, with costs, without prejudice to application for stay under section 1436-a of the Civil Practice Act.
HAMMER, SHIENTAG and EDER, JJ., concur.
Order reversed, etc.