From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hartsdale Realty Company v. Santos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 14, 1991
170 A.D.2d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 14, 1991

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York (Robert D. Lippman, J.).


Contrary to respondent's argument, sufficient non-conclusory, non-hearsay factual allegations are asserted in the managing agent's affidavit to support the landlord's claim that respondent has illegally sublet and/or assigned her rent-stabilized apartment. Moreover, ample need has been demonstrated for limited discovery into the identification of the present occupants of the apartment, in view of the contention that one of the occupants is not the tenant of record, but merely a person with the same name. We find that no prejudice will befall the respondent-tenant, since it is the landlord's case which will be delayed, if at all, by the request for disclosure.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

Hartsdale Realty Company v. Santos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 14, 1991
170 A.D.2d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Hartsdale Realty Company v. Santos

Case Details

Full title:HARTSDALE REALTY COMPANY, Respondent, v. RAMONA R. SANTOS, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 14, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
565 N.Y.S.2d 527

Citing Cases

Zada Assocs. v. Melucci

Landlord established "ample need" (New York Univ. v Farkas, 121 Misc 2d 643, 647 [1983]) to inspect and…

Mautner-Glick Corp. v. Higgins

We sustain the grant of tenant's discovery motion. A summary proceeding pursuant to the Real Property…