From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cardosanto v. Cardosanto

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Oct 24, 1958
15 Misc. 2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)

Opinion

October 24, 1958

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, ABRAHAM R. MARGULIES, J.

La Penna Tuckman ( Harry M. Krokow of counsel), for appellant.

L.M. Kooperstein and Joseph Goldberg for respondent.


This proceeding was properly brought under subdivision 8 of section 1411 of the Civil Practice Act. Upon due notice of revocation of the license of the occupant, the landlord became entitled to possession of the premises.

The final order should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, with $30 costs to landlord, and final order directed for the landlord as prayed for in the petition, with appropriate costs in the court below. Issuance of warrant stayed to and including November 30, 1958.

Concur — PETTE, HART and BROWN, JJ.

Final order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Cardosanto v. Cardosanto

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Oct 24, 1958
15 Misc. 2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
Case details for

Cardosanto v. Cardosanto

Case Details

Full title:CONCETTA CARDOSANTO, Appellant v. ESTELLE M. CARDOSANTO, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Oct 24, 1958

Citations

15 Misc. 2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
186 N.Y.S.2d 331

Citing Cases

Tausik v. Tausik

The law now provides that this slow and expensive ejectment action, in fact, for practical purposes no remedy…

Murawski v. Melkun

To suggest otherwise would in effect callously leave a widow bare of any possessory right evolving from a…